NUTRITION AND OVERWEIGHT CONCERNS IN RURAL AREAS

by Tom Tai-Seale and Coleman Chandler

 

 

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

 

  • Overweight and obesity are one of the 10 “leading health indicators” selected through a process led by an interagency workgroup within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.40
  • Nutritional disorders with complications and comorbidities are the ninth most frequent diagnostic category among hospitalized rural elderly Medicare beneficiaries.41
  • Nationally, rural areas have higher self-reported rates of adult obesity than urban areas, but there is considerable variation among men and women across the region.42

·        Diet and activity patterns have been ranked second only to tobacco as the leading “actual causes of death” in the United States, i.e., contributing to the diagnosed condition associated with death.43

 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

 

The goal of Healthy People 2010’s nutrition and overweight focus area is to promote health and reduce chronic disease associated with diet and weight.1 According to the Rural Healthy People 2010 survey, nutrition and overweight tied with cancer for 10th and 11th ranks among the Healthy People 2010 focus areas that were rated as rural health priorities; it was nominated by an average of 22 percent of the four groups for state and rural health respondents.3 The Northeast and Midwest produced statistically significantly higher percentages of nominations for nutrition and overweight as a priority than did the South and West.

 

This summary addresses five of the Healthy People 2010 objectives:

 

  • 19-1. Increase the proportion of adults who are at a healthy weight.
  • 19-2. Reduce the proportion of adults who are obese.
  • 19-3. Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents who are overweight or obese.
  • 19-15. Increase the proportion of children and adolescents ages six to 19 years whose intake of meals and snacks at school contributes to good overall dietary quality.
  • 19-16. Increase the proportion of worksites that offer nutrition or weight management classes or counseling.

 

PREVALENCE

 

Obesity and overweight in America are described by the Surgeon General as epidemic in proportion,2 with 61 percent of American adults overweight or obese, and 13 percent of children and adolescents overweight. One shift in the trend toward obesity and overweight is the increasing proportion of rural residents combating this problem.

 

While overweight and obesity are prevalent throughout the United States, the problem may be especially severe in rural areas. Prior to 1980, obesity was more common in children in large metropolitan areas.4, 5 However, a number of relevant studies indicate a reversal of the situation wherein, childhood and adolescent obesity appear to be worse in rural areas. The trend is mirrored among adults as well wherein, for adults (male and female), national survey data and smaller regional studies6-9 support the view that obesity is more common in rural areas.

 

IMPACT

 

Obesity and overweight are associated with a myriad of health-related consequences. It is estimated that obesity accounts for between 6 to 7 percent of our total health care expenditures and costs this nation over $100 billion dollars annually.10, 11

 

Current estimates are that obesity increases the risk of death from all causes about 1.5 fold and from coronary heart disease about two-fold.12-15 The age-adjusted coronary heart disease death rate in the South is highest in rural areas and second highest (most years) in the rural Northeast.16

 

Obese children suffer more psychosocial dysfunction, hypertension, abnormal cholesterol metabolism, and orthopedic conditions like Blount’s disease and hip problems such as slipped capital femoral epiphysis.17 Excess weight on an adolescent tends to be carried into adulthood,18-21 facilitating the early beginning of atherosclerosis or buildup of fatty tissue in the arteries.22 For both men and women who were overweight as adolescents, the rates of atherosclerosis, diabetes, coronary heart disease, hip fractures, and gout are increased.14

 

Overweight and obesity increase the risk of a great variety of serious diseases including heart disease; stroke; hypertension; gallbladder disease; cancer of the endometrium, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and postmenopausal breast.23 Overweight and obesity is also associated with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, glucose intolerance, menstrual irregularities, pregnancy complications, stress incontinence, and psychosocial disorders.23 Further, the number of chronic medical conditions increases and the quality of life decreases with increasing body mass index.12

 

In addition to physical health-related problems, the overweight bear the brunt of severe social criticism that characterizes them as unhealthy, diseased, emotionally immature, weak, lazy, and impulsive.24 Consequently, they face a wide variety of social problems including stigmatization and discrimination.25

 

BARRIERS

 

A fair portion of the disproportionate prevalence of obesity in rural areas is caused by the distinctive demographic composition of rural communities. Rural residents are on average older, less educated, and have a lower income than urban residents; and those who are older, less educated, and have a lower income have greater obesity.26-33

 

There is evidence that rural life presents special cultural and structural challenges to maintaining a healthy weight. Cultural factors contributing to the problem include higher dietary fat and calorie consumption; declining frequency of exercise; increased television watching (including video game use); decreased compliance with dietary recommendations; and differential amounts of exercise among rural residents. Structural factors contributing to obesity in rural areas include lack of nutrition education, decreased access to nutritionists, fewer physical education classes in schools, and fewer exercise facilities. Rural areas, in particular, face other unique challenges such as fewer prevention and treatment facilities, and further distances to reach them. 

 

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

 

According to the Surgeon General, the most effective prevention and treatment strategies for obesity are unknown.2 Nevertheless, the outlines of a model program can be discerned from the Surgeon General’s recent suggestions for developing a public health response.2 The Surgeon General calls for communication, action, research, and evaluation to address obesity at each of five social settings: family and community, school, health care, media and communications, and worksites. Thus, the best overall program ensures that there are effective and complimentary interventions at each setting.

 

More specifically, the best place to start in preventing obesity is with preventing the development of it in young children. Diets for children as early as preschool, for example, should be comprised of no more than 30 percent of their caloric intake from fat and less than 10 percent of the calories from saturated fat. Fat-lowering diet interventions using a variety of techniques (e.g., purchasing food with less fat content, eliminating excess or added fat in food preparation, baking rather than frying food, and increasing the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables) have proven successful.34, 35 Overall, combining fat-lowering school food service programs with enhanced physical activity in physical education classes and classroom-based health education offer effective intervention to obesity among children.

 

Community or home-based programs have also been found to be successful. One such example, the Children’s Health Project, introduced a self-instruction program consisting of 10 lessons, complete with an audiotape, picture booklet, paper and pencil activities, and a parent manual for guidance.36, 37 Children using this program significantly lowered their total fat and saturated fat intake in comparison to children in control groups. Other community or home-based programs, such as nutrition and physical exercise counseling programs and behavior therapy programs, have also produced positive results over time.23

 

Numerous programs have been designed to address overweight and obesity among adults, with many mirroring the strategies outlined above. Relatively new innovations such as weight-loss programs broadcast over cable television38 or more traditional correspondence courses39 may well be able to address some of the barriers facing individuals in rural settings with less access to weight-loss programs or centers. Structural changes may be warranted as well to address the growing problem of overweight and obesity in rural settings. Such changes could include increased offerings of continuing education for rural physicians and other care providers related to nutrition and weight management, or developing community incentive programs for worksite weight management and nutrition programs or activities.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

It is not clear why living in a rural area increases the odds of being obese and suffering its effects. Certainly, the demographic composition of rural areas accounts for some, perhaps a large portion, of the extra risk. However, individuals residing in rural communities face other challenges as well as those enumerated above. Despite these challenges, designers of interventions are encouraged to remember the basic goals: decrease fat and calorie intake, and increase physical exercise. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action makes it clear that progress can be made if interventions are introduced at multiple levels of society: from individual to community, school to worksite, media to health care. Surely one of the more important steps is to initiate coalition formation in rural communities charged with raising awareness of the growing problem of overweight and obesity in rural settings as well as to martial all available resources to address it to enhance the health of rural America.

 

MODELS FOR PRACTICE

 

The following models for practice are examples of programs utilized to address this rural health concern.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2000.

 

2. Satcher, D. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.

 

3. Gamm, L.; Hutchison, L.; Bellamy, G.; et al. Rural healthy people 2010: Identifying rural health priorities and models for practice. Journal of Rural Health, 18(1):9-14, 2002.

 

4. Dietz, W.H., Jr., and Gortmaker, S.L. Factors within the physical environment associated with childhood obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 39(4):619-624, 1984.

 

5. Malina, R.M. Ethnic variation in the prevalence of obesity in North American children and youth. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 33(4-5):389-396, 1993.

 

6. Noel, M.; Hickner, J.; Ettenhofer, T.; et al. The high prevalence of obesity in Michigan primary care practices. An UPRNet study. Upper Peninsula Research Network. Journal of Family Practice 47(1):39-43, 1998.

 

7. Levin, S.; Mayer-Davis, E.J.; Ainsworth, B.E.; et al. Racial/ethnic health disparities in South Carolina and the role of rural locality and educational attainment. Southern Medical Journal 94(7):711-718, 2001.

 

8. Greenlund, K.J.; Kiefe, C.I.; Gidding, S.S.; et al. Differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors in black and white young adults: Comparisons among five communities of the CARDIA and the Bogalusa Heart Studies. Coronary artery risk development in young adults. Annals of Epidemiology 8(1):22-30, 1998.

 

9. Ogunyemi, D.; Hullett, S.; Leeper, J.; et al. Prepregnancy body mass index, weight gain during pregnancy, and perinatal outcome in a rural black population. Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine 7(4):190-193, 1998.

 

10. Wolf, A.M. What is the economic case for treating obesity? Obesity Research 6 (1 Suppl): 2S-7S, 1998.

 

11. Colditz, G.A. Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31(11 Suppl):S663-667, 1999.

 

12. Sturm, R., and Wells, K.B. Does obesity contribute as much to morbidity as poverty or smoking? Public Health 115(3):229-235, 2001.

 

13. Must, A., and Strauss, R.S. Risks and consequences of childhood and adolescent obesity. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 23 (2 Suppl):S2-11, 1999.

 

14. Dietz, W.H. Childhood weight affects adult morbidity and mortality. Journal of Nutrition 128(2 Suppl):411S-414S, 1998.

 

15. Pi-Sunyer, F.X. Medical hazards of obesity. Annals of Internal Medicine 119(7 Pt 2):655-660, 1993.

 

16. Ingram, D.D., and Gillum, R.F. Regional and urbanization differentials in coronary heart disease mortality in the United States, 1968-85. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42(9):857-868, 1989.

 

17. Dietz, W.H., Jr. Prevention of childhood obesity. Pediatric Clinics of North America 33(4):823-833, 1986.

 

18. Guo, S.; Salisbury, S.; Roche, A.F.; et al. Cardiovascular disease risk factors and body composition: A review. Nutrition Research 14(11):1721-1777, 1994.

 

19. Freedman, D.S.; Shear, C.L.; Burke, G.L.; et al. Persistence of juvenile-onset obesity over eight years: The Bogalusa Heart Study. American Journal of Public Health 77(5):588-592, 1987.

 

20. Srinivasan, S.R.; Bao, W.; Wattigney, W.A.; et al. Adolescent overweight is associated with adult overweight and related multiple cardiovascular risk factors: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Metabolism 45(2):235-240, 1996.

 

21. Serdula, M.K.; Ivery, D.; Coates, R.J.; et al. Do obese children become obese adults? A review of the literature. Preventive Medicine 22(2):167-177, 1993.

 

22. Berenson, G.S.; Wattigney, W.A.; Tracy, R.E.; et al. Atherosclerosis of the aorta and coronary arteries and cardiovascular risk factors in persons aged 6 to 30 years and studied at necropsy (The Bogalusa Heart Study). American Journal of Cardiology 70(1):851-858, 1992.

 

23. National Institute of Health (NIH), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service (PHS), 1998, xxiii.

 

24. De Jong, W. The stigma of obesity: The consequences of naive assumptions concerning the cause of physical deviants. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21:75-87, 1980.

 

25. Sobal, J., and Devine, C. Social aspects of obesity: Influences, consequences, assessments, and interventions In: Dalton, S. Overweight and Weight Management: The Health Professional’s Guide to Understanding and Practice. New York, NY: ASPEN Publication, 1997, 289-308.

 

26. Martikainen, P.T., and Marmot, M.G. Socioeconomic differences in weight gain and determinants and consequences of coronary risk factors. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69(4):719-726, 1999.

 

27. Lantz, P.M.; House, J.S.; Lepkowski, J.M.; et al. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of U.S. adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(21):1703-1708, 1998.

 

28. Sobal, J.; Troiana, R.P.; and Frongillo, E.A., Jr. Rural-urban differences in obesity. Rural Sociology 2(61):289-305, 1996.

 

29. Desch, C.E.; Smith, T.J.; Breindel, C.L.; et al. Cancer treatment in rural areas. Hospital and Health Services Administration 37(4):449-463, 1992.

 

30. Crooks, D.L. American children at risk: Poverty and its consequences for children’s health, growth, and school achievement. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 38:57-86, 1995.

 

31. Sherry, B.; Springer, D.A.; Connell, F. A.; et al. Short, thin, or obese? Comparing growth indexes of children from high- and low-poverty areas. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 92(9):1092-1095, 1992.

 

32. Duelberg, S.I. Preventive health behavior among black and white women in urban and rural areas. Social Science and Medicine 34(2):191-198, 1992.

 

33. Miller, M.K.; Stokes, C.S.; and Clifford, W.B. A comparison of the rural-urban mortality differential for deaths from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Journal of Rural Health 3(2):23-34, 1987.

 

34. Williams, C.L.; Bollella, M.C.; Strobino, B.A.; et al. “Healthy-start”: Outcome of an intervention to promote a heart healthy diet in preschool children. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 21(1):62-71, 2002.

 

35. Spark, A.; Pfau, J.; Nicklas, T.A.; et al. Reducing fat in preschool meals: Description of the foodservice intervention component of Healthy Start. Journal of Nutrition Education 30(3):170-177, 1998.

 

36. Dixon, L.B.; Tershakovec, A.M.; McKenzie, J.; et al. Diet quality of young children who received nutrition education promoting lower dietary fat. Public Health Nutrition 3(4):411-416, 2000.

 

37. McKenzie, J.; Dixon, L.B.; Wright, H.S.; et al. Change in nutrient intakes, number of servings, and contributions of total fat from food groups in 4- to 10-year-old children enrolled in a nutrition education study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96(9):865-873, 1996.

 

38. Meyers, A.W.; Graves, T.J.; Whelan, J.P.; et al. An evaluation of a television-delivered behavioral weight loss program: Are the ratings acceptable? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64(1):172-178, 1996.

 

39. Jeffery, R.W., and Gerber, W.M. Group and correspondence treatments for weight reduction used in the multiple risk factor intervention trial. Behavior Therapy 13:24-30, 1982.

 

40. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Leading Health Indicators.

<http://www.healthypeople.gov/LHI/>2002

 

41. Buczko, W. Rural Medicare beneficiaries’ use of rural and urban hospitals. Journal of Rural Health 17:53-58, 2001.

 

42. Eberhardt, M.S.; Ingram, D.D.; Makuc, D.M.; et al. Urban and Rural Chartbook. Health, United States, 2001. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.

 

43. McGinnis, J.M., and Foege, W.H. Actual causes of death in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association 270:2207-2212, 1993.

 

Chapter Suggested Citation

 

Tai-Seale, T., and Chandler, C. (2003). Nutrition and Overweight Concerns in Rural Areas. Rural Healthy People 2010: A companion document to Healthy People 2010. Volume 1. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health, Southwest Rural Health Research Center.

MODELS FOR PRACTICE

FOCUS AREA: NUTRITION AND OVERWEIGHT

 

 

Program Name: Daya Tibi “House of Good Living”/Fort Peck Community College Wellness Center

Location: Poplar, Montana

Problem Addressed: Nutrition and Diet

Healthy People 2010 Objective: 19

Web Address: None

 

 

SNAPSHOT

 

The Daya Tibi, “House of Good Living,” Wellness Center was established to combat the problem of obesity in Native Americans. The Wellness Center delivers several programs to address the problems of obesity. Generally, the Wellness Center focus is directed toward nutritional matters.

 

Initially, the city of Poplar received a grant from the Kellogg Foundation to create a wellness center. The Wellness Center is now funded by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nutrition, Diet, and Health grant and benefits from collaboration with other health groups. Those groups involved in the growth and establishment of Daya Tibi Wellness Center include the Fort Peck Tribal Health Department (638 Contract Diabetic Program), USDA Commodity Program – Fort Peck Tribes, USDA Food Stamp Nutrition Program, and the Native American Hunger Program through Phillip Morris Companies, Inc.

 

THE MODEL

 

Blueprint: The Wellness Center, associated with Fort Peck Community College (FPCC), is located on a Indian reservation in the city of Poplar, which is located in the northeastern corner of Montana and bordered on the south by the Missouri River. The reservation is 110 miles east to west and 40 miles north to south, encompassing 2,093,318 acres. The initial objective for creating the Daya Tibia Wellness Center was to address the problem of obesity and diabetes. The Wellness Center was built to serve toddlers, adolescents, adults, and the elderly of Native American descent. The Wellness Center created a nutrition awareness program, which is a six-week program where a nutritionalist assists individuals with their nutrition intake level, cholesterol level, food choices, etc. In conjunction with the nutrition program, the Wellness Center implemented the “Cooking for Kids Program” that teaches children proper food usage, kitchen safety, meal planning, table setting, and sufficient food preparation. It shows children the proper usage of the food pyramid and other visuals related to their nutritional intake. Furthermore, the Wellness Center provides an exercise physiologist to assist those individuals who participate in the six-week program.

 

Making a Difference: During the six-week program, the exercise physiologist makes assessments of the individual’s physique and health. A personal wellness profile is used to measure the success of the program. The profile consists of pre- and post-tests of fat levels; blood sugar; cholesterol check; blood pressure; and measurement of arms, biceps, hips, and waist. It also records participation in nutrition classes. The personal wellness profile helps individuals attack their problems through weight loss or by reducing their risks of developing diabetes. The overall goal of the personal wellness profile is to motivate participants in the program to stick with a nutritional diet supporting a healthier lifestyle. One of the USDA grant objectives measured the success of 86 participants’ weight and health improvements. Of the 86 participants, 44 showed improvements in several categories (i.e., weight; blood pressure; blood sugar; and arm, wrist, and chest measurements).

 

Beginnings: The Fort Peck Community College Department of Community Services and several key community leaders observed the growing trends of obesity and diabetes among the community’s youth and adults. This recognition led to the development of the Wellness Center program to address the problem of obesity, diabetes, and poor nutritional habits.

 

Challenges and Solutions: Implementation of the nutrition awareness program was viewed as a trial to see if the community was ready to change its nutritional habits. The goal of the nutritional program is to change participants’ behavior toward living a better life. Demonstration of the program led to applying for the USDA Nutrition, Diet, and Health Grant for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.

 

The Wellness Center monitors the success of the participants after completing the six-week program by conducting regular follow-ups and health screenings. Currently, the Wellness Center is modifying its objectives and goals for the program and plans to build two more wellness centers for the west and east sides of the reservation, based in Poplar and Wolf Point.

 

PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION

 

Jeanette Charbonneau

Daya Tibi “House of Good Living”/FPCC Wellness Center

P.O. Box 398

Poplar, MT 59255

Phone: (406) 768-5630

Fax: (406) 768-5552

 

MODELS FOR PRACTICE

FOCUS AREA: NUTRITION AND OVERWEIGHT

 

 

Program Name: Physical Dimensions/Focus

Location: Wichita, Kansas

Problem Addressed: Lack of Physical Education in the Kansas Schools

Healthy People 2010 Objective: 19

Web Address: None

 

 

SNAPSHOT

Physical Focus is one of three physical activity programs integrated in Kansas schools. It is designed to provide middle school students with the ability and knowledge to enjoy a healthy lifestyle.

Physical Dimensions is another physical activity program integrated in Kansas high schools. The purpose of this program is to increase student awareness about living a healthy lifestyle, stress management, and in general, to help improve their decision-making skills about taking drugs, alcohol, or engaging in risky sexual activity.

 

Physical Focus covers three principal areas, as described below:

 

  • Area 1: Healthy Heart develops the skills and knowledge for a health-enhancing level of fitness and regular habits of physical activity.
  • Area 2: Team Power (Team Cardio) develops the students’ ability to compete and cooperate together to achieve a common goal.
  • Area 3: Life Adventures develops life-long goals of recreational and leisure skills.*

 

Physical Dimensions is delivered through a one-year course, divided into nine weeks (three weeks per topic area). Each segment focuses on a particular health topic, achievements, and successful outcomes. One of the advantages of participating in Physical Dimensions is that it offers high school students the chance to be recognized with a certificate for completing the program.

 

THE MODEL

 

Blueprint: The following groups were responsible for integrating the Physical Dimensions/Focus programs in the Kansas school district: Kansas Health Foundation; Kansas State Department of Education; Kansas Public Schools (over 300); Kansas Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (KAHPERD); Wichita State University; Emporia State University; Fort Hays State University; Pittsburg State University; and Kansas University.

 

The Physical Dimensions/Focus project is a grant-funded operation, which is housed at Wichita State University, and is fully staffed with a full-time project director and on-site full-time administrative assistant. The secondary staff members are consultants who serve as part time curriculum writers and curriculum trainers.

 

Physical Dimensions/Focus staff identified several problems focusing on physical education, such as low enrollment in elective physical education classes, one year physical education requirement for Kansas schools, high rates of students reporting that physical education was not enjoyable or beneficial to them, and physical education no longer being required in elementary and middle schools. The problems were identified through a series of surveys and interviews conducted by educators in the Kansas schools. From that point, the staff focused on disseminating letters, newsletters, and participating in conferences to promote services to all Kansas schools and physical education teachers.

 

Making a Difference: Physical Dimension/Focus started in 1995, but the models were not fully implemented until 2001. Presently, the two programs are still growing in the Kansas schools. The Physical Dimension/Focus project evaluates its outcomes by keeping a chart of those schools participating in the program and by students’ achievement of the program curriculum.

 

Beginnings: Educators in participating Kansas schools made observations regarding the lack of physical activity in the Kansas schools. From the data that were collected, the acclaimed Hellison Model was used to model the two physical activity programs. Physical Dimensions/Focus was integrated in seven middle schools and five high schools to teach young people about the importance of exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

 

Challenges and Solutions: The Kansas Health Foundation originally funded the program, and now the state universities support the program. The program disseminates information by sending out an annual newsletter to the stakeholders, issuing media releases, and organizing statewide conferences for educators.

 

Physical Dimensions/Focus received the National Health Information Gold Award for its promotional and educational video in 2000. The program has been highlighted in The Wall Street Journal, Better Homes and Gardens, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, and several of Kansas’s newspapers, magazines, and television news programs.

 

PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION

 

Bobbie Harris

Physical Dimensions/Focus

1845 Fairmont Street

Wichita, KS 67260-0016

Phone: (316) 978-5957

Fax: None

 

 

* Harris, B.; Ermler, K.; and Mehrhof, J. Physical Focus, Kansas Middle School Physical Activity & Health/ Wellness Curriculum. Kansas Health Foundation, 1995.