Programme coordinators’ perceptions of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with school nutrition programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As part of a larger evaluation of school nutrition programmes (SNP), the present study examined programme coordinators' perceptions of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) regarding their SNP and public health professionals' support. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with twenty-two of eighty-one programme coordinators who had completed a programme evaluation survey. Interviews followed a SWOT framework to evaluate programmes and assessed coordinators' perceptions regarding current and future partnerships with public health professionals. SETTING: The study was conducted in a large, urban region within Ontario. SUBJECTS: The twenty-two coordinators who participated represented a cross-section of elementary, secondary, Public and Catholic schools. RESULTS: SNP varied enormously in foods/services offered, how they offered them and perceived needs. Major strengths included universality, the ability to reach needy students and the provision of social opportunities. Major weaknesses included challenges in forming funding partnerships, lack of volunteers, scheduling and timing issues, and coordinator workload. Common threats to effective SNP delivery included lack of sustainable funding, complexity in tracking programme use and food distribution, unreliable help from school staff, and conflicts with school administration. Opportunities for increased public health professionals' assistance included menu planning, nutrition education, expansion of programme food offerings, and help identifying community partners and sustainable funding. CONCLUSIONS: The present research identified opportunities for improving SNP and strategies for building on strengths. Since programmes were so diverse, tailored strategies are needed. Public health professionals can play a major role through supporting menu planning, food safety training, access to healthy foods, curriculum planning and by building community partnerships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".