Coverage and effectiveness of the Village Food Security Movement (GKPD) in Yogyakarta Special Region

Rizqi Amalia Rohmah; Lily Arsanti Lestari; Yayi Suryo Prabandari

doi:10.22146/bkm.57611

Coverage and effectiveness of the Village Food Security Movement (GKPD) in Yogyakarta Special Region

https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.57611

Rizqi Amalia Rohmah^(1*), Lily Arsanti Lestari⁽²⁾, Yayi Suryo Prabandari⁽³⁾

(1) Universitas Gadjah Mada
(2)
(3)
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluates the GKPD program in DIY using Reach and Effectiveness dimensions with the RE-AIM framework.

Method: This research is a qualitative evaluation method research with a descriptive case study research design, which was carried out in 3 villages in DIY, Pandowoharjo, Sendangsari, and Mangunan from January-May 2020. Seventy three informants were selected purposely by those who have rich information related to the GKPD program implementation. Data was collected from six focus group discussions, 16 interviews, field observations, and document reviews. To assure the data credibility, then triangulation, member checking, and peer debriefing were done.

Results: Reach: the program involved village officials, community representatives, food providers in the village, and health agencies. Factors that encourage involvement are the conditions of village food safety and the expected benefits of the program, and inhibiting factors are restrictions on the number of participants, cadre/community conditions, and technical constraints. Effectiveness: the GKPD program increases the knowledge of cadres/communities involved, but food safety practices have not been carried out consistently with contributing factors such as limited infrastructures, lack of human resources, less active cadres, and short exposure to food safety.

Conclusion: It is a need to design more effective training programs so that food safety practices will be more consistent as well as periodic monitoring.

Keywords

evaluasi program; jangkauan; efektivitas; keamanan pangan; RE-AIM

References

1. Arisanti RR, Indriani C, Wilopo SA. Kontribusi agen dan faktor penyebab kejadian luar biasa keracunan pangan di Indonesia: kajian sistematis. Ber Kedokt Masy. 2018;34(3):99–106.

2. Wirakartakusumah A, Purnomo EH. Safety of Street Food : Indonesia ’ s Experience. In: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier Ltd.; 2014. hal. 75–9.

3. BPOM. Kerangka Acuan Kerja Gerakan Keamanan Pangan Desa Tahun 2018. 2018.

4. Labonte R, Laverack G. Health Promotion in Action From Local to Global Empowerment. England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.

5. Fertman CI, Allensworth DD, editor. Health Promotion Programs From Theory to Practice. First Edit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.

6. Capwell EM, Butterfos F, Francisco VT. Why Evaluate? Health Promot Pract. 2000;1(1):15–20.

7. Holtrop JS, Rabin BA, Glasgow RE. Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: Rationale and methods. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–10.

8. Laverack G. Health Promotion Practice Building Empowered Communities. New York: Open University Press; 2007.

9. Widagdo L. Kepala Desa dan Kepemimpinan Perdesaan: Persepsi Kader Posyandu di Kecamatan Mlonggo Kabupaten Jepara Jawa Tengah, 2000. Makara J Heal Res. 2006;10(2):54–9.

10. BBPOM di Yogyakarta. Laporan Tahunan 2019 Balai Besar POM di Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta; 2020.

11. Bhattacharyya K, Winch P, LeBan K, Tien M. Community Health Worker Incentives and Disincentives: How They Affect Motivation, Retention, and Sustainability. Virginia: Basic Support for Institutionalizing Child Survival Project (BASICS II) for the United States Agency for International Development; 2001.

12. Anggitasari A, Rahayu WP, Ratnasari Y. Pengaruh Program Keamanan Pangan di Sekolah terhadap Pengetahuan Penjaja Pangan Jajanan dan Siswa Sekolah Dasar. J Mutu Pangan. 2014;1(2):151–8.

13. Cempaka L, Rizki AA, Asiah N. Knowledge , Attitudes and Practices Regarding Food Hygiene and Sanitation of Food Street Handlers in the Public Elementary School at Greater Jakarta , Indonesia. Asian Pasific J Sustain Agric Food Energy. 2019;7(2):1–8.

14. Thimoteo D, Stedefeldt E, Rosso VV De. The role of theoretical food safety training on Brazilian food handlers ’ knowledge , attitude and practice. Food Control [Internet]. 2014;43:167–74. Tersedia pada: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.03.012

15. Ellinda-Patra M., Dewanti-Hariyadi R, Nurtama B. Modeling of food safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior characteristics. Food Res. 2020;4(August):1045–52.

16. Lee RM, Gortmaker SL. School Interventions to Support Health Behavior Change. In: Riekert KA, Ockene JK, Pbert L, editor. The Handbook of Health Behavior Change. Fourth Edi. New York: Spinger Publishing Company; 2014. hal. 383–95.

17. Mcintyre L, Peng D, Henderson SB. Retraining effectiveness in FOODSAFE trained food handlers in British Columbia, Canada. Food Control [Internet]. 2014;35(1):137–41. Tersedia pada: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.06.028

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.57611