TABLE 4—
Staff Members’ Perceptions (n = 51) of Intervention’s Effect on Self-Efficacy and Counseling: The California Fit WIC Program
| Intervention Group | Control Group | ||||
| Response | Before Intervention, % (n) | After Intervention, % (n) | Before Intervention, % (n) | After Intervention, % (n) | Pa |
| Felt very comfortable encouraging WIC parents to do physical activities with their children. | . . . | 64 (16) | . . . | 35 (9) | .036 |
| Felt comfortable or very comfortable in talking about weight issues with parents of overweight children. | 59 (13) | 71 (17) | 63 (15) | 65 (17) | .647 |
| Felt confident or very confident in helping children maintain a healthy weight. | 46 (12) | 54 (13) | 38 (9) | 42 (11) | .873 |
| Felt they have had success helping WIC parents with their overweight children. | 68 (13) | 91 (19) | 64(14) | 68 (15) | .368 |
| Made positive changes in the way they talk with parents about weight. | . . . | 92 (22) | . . . | 58 (15) | .006 |
| Talked almost always with WIC parents about physical activity. | 29 (6) | 48(12) | 13 (3) | 23 (6) | .610 |
Note. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
aP value refers to pre-post change in intervention vs control. Where no pre-intervention data was collected, P value refers to intervention vs control comparison of post-intervention values.