Low Income Adults Access to Technology
esearch Brief Assessment of Low-Income Adults’ Access to Technology: Implications for Nutrition Education
Lauren M. Neuenschwander, MS, RD1; Angela Abbott, MA, RD, CD1; Amy R. Mobley, PhD, RD2,y
ABSTRACT
Objective: The main objective of this study was to investigate access and use of technologies such as the Internet among Indiana’s low-income population. The secondary objective was to determine whether access and use of computers significantly differed by age, race, and/or education level. Methods: Data were collected from low-income adult Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education participants for a 2-year period using a cross-sectional questionnaire about access and use of technology. Results: Approximately 50% of the total respondents (n ¼ 1,620) indicated that they had a working computer in their home, and of those, the majority (78%) had a high-speed Internet connection. Chi-square analysis revealed that younger adults who were white and had more education were more likely to have a computer (P < .001) and Internet. Conclusions and Implications: The results of this study provide evidence that using Internet-based nutrition education in a low-income population is a viable and possibly cost-effective option. Key Words: Internet, low-income, technology, computers, nutrition education (J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012;44:60-65.)
INTRODUCTION
The Internet is becoming the preferred way for consumers to quickly get health information.1 In 2004, a survey done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that over half of those surveyed said they sought out ‘‘information about diet, nutrition, vitamins, or nutritional supplements’’ online.2 Access to and use of the Internet has historically varied depending on one 's sex, ethnicity, education level, and socioeconomic status.3 This differential access, often referred to as the ‘‘digital divide,’’ appears to be decreasing, and those who do not access the Internet are considered an ‘‘ever-shrinking
Lauren M. Neuenschwander, MS, RD1; Angela Abbott, MA, RD, CD1; Amy R. Mobley, PhD, RD2,y
ABSTRACT
Objective: The main objective of this study was to investigate access and use of technologies such as the Internet among Indiana’s low-income population. The secondary objective was to determine whether access and use of computers significantly differed by age, race, and/or education level. Methods: Data were collected from low-income adult Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education participants for a 2-year period using a cross-sectional questionnaire about access and use of technology. Results: Approximately 50% of the total respondents (n ¼ 1,620) indicated that they had a working computer in their home, and of those, the majority (78%) had a high-speed Internet connection. Chi-square analysis revealed that younger adults who were white and had more education were more likely to have a computer (P < .001) and Internet. Conclusions and Implications: The results of this study provide evidence that using Internet-based nutrition education in a low-income population is a viable and possibly cost-effective option. Key Words: Internet, low-income, technology, computers, nutrition education (J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012;44:60-65.)
INTRODUCTION
The Internet is becoming the preferred way for consumers to quickly get health information.1 In 2004, a survey done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that over half of those surveyed said they sought out ‘‘information about diet, nutrition, vitamins, or nutritional supplements’’ online.2 Access to and use of the Internet has historically varied depending on one 's sex, ethnicity, education level, and socioeconomic status.3 This differential access, often referred to as the ‘‘digital divide,’’ appears to be decreasing, and those who do not access the Internet are considered an ‘‘ever-shrinking
References: 1. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2618-2624. 2. Fox S. Health Information Online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2005. 3. Ono H, Zavodny M. Digital inequality: a five country comparison using microdata. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36:11351155. 4. US Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. A Report on Americans’ Access to Technology Tools. http://search. ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf. Published October 2000. Accessed June 13, 2011. 5. McKenzie J, Neiger B, Smeltzer J. Marketing: making sure programs respond to the wants and needs of consumers. In: Planning, Implementing and Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education, Inc; 2005:253-257. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE With the ‘‘digital divide’’ slowly dissipating among lower socioeconomic groups, this study provides evidence that Web-based nutrition education could be a feasible option for a lowincome adult population. Not only could the Internet be a valuable method of delivering nutrition education to low-income adults, but also to their children, and it could be a way of retaining ‘‘clients’’ and reinforcing nutrition information on a longerterm basis. In addition, nutrition educators can position themselves, if not already, as experts to provide guidance to low-income persons about additional reliable nutrition resources available on the Web. Future research should investigate the impact of various forms of technology, such as a Web site, on nutrition education outcomes for low-income Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior Volume 44, Number 1, 2012 17. Romero-Gwynn E, Marshall MK. Radio: untapped teaching tool. Journal of Extension. 1990;28:1FEA1. http://www. joe.org/joe/1990spring/a1.php. Accessed September 2, 2011 18. Cole-Lewis H, Kershaw T. Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management. Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:56-69. 19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mobile atCDC.CentersforDisease Control and Prevention Mobile Web site. http:// www.cdc.gov/mobile. Updated August 31, 2011. Accessed September 2, 2011. Neuenschwander et al 65 20. Lenhart A. Pew Research Center. Cell phones and American adults. Pew Internet Web site. http://pewinternet. org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phones-andAmerican-Adults.aspx. Published September 2, 2010. Accessed September 2, 2011.