"The Ultimate Goal is the Best Health Possible": Exploring Collaborations Between the Food Safety and Food Security Sectors in British Columbia, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: In Canada, foodborne disease and food insecurity are both important health issues that share many common drivers. However, the public health sectors that aim to address each of these issues typically work separately from each other. Despite the silo-ing of the two sectors, British Columbia has many examples of successful collaborations, and therefore is an excellent setting to explore collaborations between the two sectors. Thus, the objectives of this thesis were to: (i) identify examples of the intersection of food safety and food security efforts in public health practice; and (ii) explore facilitators and barriers for collaborations between public health practitioners of the food safety and food security sectors. \nMethods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 public health practitioners working in the food safety and food security sectors in British Columbia, and qualitative analyses were conducted to identify examples of intersections between the two sectors, as well as factors that influence the success of collaborations between practitioners of the two sectors. \nResults: Participants identified four key ways that the two sectors intersect. They identified ways in which their daily practices could be helped or hindered by the activities of the other sector, including because of historically disjointed policies that do not consider multiple health outcomes related to food, and because specific types of food products, such as fresh produce, can be considered either risky or beneficial depending on the perspective taken. Finally, they recognized that both sectors are working towards the same overall goal of improved population health, albeit using slightly different lenses. In addition to the ways that the two sectors intersect, participants identified many examples of factors that influence the success of collaborations between practitioners of the two sectors, including many factors that could be considered facilitators when present and barriers when absent, and other factors that could be considered both facilitators and barriers, depending on the perspective through which the factor was viewed. These factors were as follows: personal connections with those in the other sector, and to those who have already successfully collaborated; purposeful engagement with different types of people who bring value; openness to, and understanding and valuing, the goals, outcomes and restrictions of the other sector; creative, realistic, and solutions-oriented problem solving targeted to desired outcomes; and recognizing that the issues are connected, and actively work with that in mind. One factor, believing that one position is more important than the other due to its external importance or legitimacy, was identified as exclusively a barrier to collaboration. Finally, participants identified broader environmental factors that needed to be recognized as influencing the success of collaborations, but that collaborations could proceed in spite of when there were other facilitators in place. \nConclusion: In British Columbia, the food safety and food security sectors, and the health issues they aim to address, are intimately connected to each other. It is therefore important that practitioners of the two sectors work together when developing and implementing public health efforts to address their respective health issues, in order to reduce the potential negative impacts they may have on the health outcome of the other sector. To this end, participants discussed factors that could inhibit or facilitate collaboration between practitioners of the two sectors, as well as specific ways that practitioners of the two sectors can better support successful collaboration with the other sector, in their quest to achieve the best possible health of the population of British Columbia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,047 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».