Implementation of Centre-level Food and Nutrition Policies: A Mixed-Methods Study of Child Care Centres in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Child care centres are important spaces for health promotion. Although child care centres have an important role in offering meals that include important nutrients that young children need for healthy growth and development and in supporting young children in developing healthy eating behaviours that can be carried into adulthood, food environments in child care are sub-optimal. Food and Nutrition Policies (FNP) have the potential to improve child care food environments, but evidence is still limited. The purpose of this sequential, mixed-methods study was to: i) perform a scoping review to identify theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) used to inform the implementation of healthy eating interventions in centre-based child care services in developed countries, ii) conduct a cross-sectional survey to describe resources and strategies in place to support FNP implementation in child care centres in Edmonton, Alberta, and iii) complete a theoretically-informed multiple case study to describe characteristics of the innovation, recipients, and context that influence the implementation of FNP among child care centres classified as low and high implementers. The scoping review identified 28 different TMFs targeting different socio-ecological levels across 38 studies. Majority of studies relied on individual-focused TMFs. Poor TMF selection, use and reporting were identified, particularly in the development of implementation strategies, which could limit TMF’s utility. The cross-sectional survey included 43 (13% response rate) child care centres across the Edmonton metropolitan region. Almost all of the participating centres had FNP in place (94%). However, on average, only about 9 of the 17 resources and processes (range 1–17) required to support FNP implementation were well-established across centres. More often, policies lacked a description of goals and providers’ responsibilities, centres did not secure resources for policy implementation and lacked evaluation of policy implementation. The multiple case study presented a comprehensive description of factors that might influence FNP implementation in child care centres. In terms of innovation, lack of clarity on FNP and a limited degree of fit were the main gaps to implementation. Also, providers had limited iii nutrition knowledge and skills, had limited power and authority to enforce policy and reported a perception of low parents’ commitment. In general, child care centres provided a supportive environment for FNP implementation, but mechanisms to embed and evaluate FNP implementation lacked focus on FNP. Overall, cases were influenced by external and system-level factors, such as regulatory frameworks, incentives and environmental stability. Access to inter-organizational networks varied across the different organizational structures (profit, non-profit, franchised). In conclusion, collaborations between researchers, policymakers, practitioners and families can help to build capacity for FNP implementation and to address the gaps identified.
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 | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».