An evaluation of the usefulness of British Columbia's guideline in educating food bank operators
Notice bibliographique
Résumé

 Background: Food Distribution Organizations (FDOs), such as food banks, community kitchen, and meal programs, are essential resources to relieve food insecurity in British Columbia. FDOs collect, process, store, and distribute donated food to the needy population. The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) published the Guidelines for Food Distribution Organizations with Grocery or Meal Programs in 2016 with purpose to educate FDOs on food safety and assist with their operational challenges. The guideline plays an important role especially for food bank operators who are not required to take food safety training. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent of the guideline use among food bank operators and assess its usefulness. This study also determines if the guideline use had a statistically significant association with higher knowledge in food safety. Methods: Self-administered electronic surveys created on Survey Monkey Canada were distributed to Foodbanks BC members by weekly online newsletter and email. The survey assessed the extent of usage of the guideline, current issues and knowledge level of FDO operators in BC. The survey response was collected over three weeks long period. Results: Among 37 FDO operators participated, 30 completed the survey. The majority of the operators was from BC, worked in food banks and had longer than 5 years long experience. 47% of participants did not know about the guideline. Among the guideline users, 83% agreed or strongly agreed that the guideline was useful. While retailers and groceries were the most common food donors, caterers and restaurants were the least common. Assessing each food item for safety was the most commonly encountered issue for FDOs. The least commonly encountered issue was having another FDO taking our donation from the donor. There was no association between the guideline use and level of food safety knowledge according to the Chi-square test (p= 0.89). There was no association between the years of experience and level of food safety knowledge (p= 0.23). The results did not show a statistically significant result potentially due to small sample size (n= 30). Conclusion: The results indicated while the guideline is useful among the users, the extent of its use should be widened. There is a need to improve accessibility of the guideline by modifying the content to address current practical issues, formatting it in a more user-friendly way, and utilizing better distribution means.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».