Health-promoting Vending Machines: Evaluation of a Pediatric Hospital Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Taking advantage of a natural experiment made possible by the placement of health-promoting vending machines (HPVMs), we evaluated the impact of the intervention on consumers' attitudes toward and practices with vending machines in a pediatric hospital. METHODS: Vending machines offering healthy snacks, meals, and beverages were developed to replace four vending machines offering the usual high-energy, low-nutrition fare. A pre- and post-intervention evaluation design was used; data were collected through exit surveys and six-week follow-up telephone surveys among potential vending machine users before (n=293) and after (n=226) placement of HPVMs. Chi-2 statistics were used to compare pre- and post-intervention participants' responses. RESULTS: More than 90% of pre- and post-intervention participants were satisfied with their purchase. Post-intervention participants were more likely to state that nutritional content and appropriateness of portion size were elements that influenced their purchase. Overall, post-intervention participants were more likely than pre-intervention participants to perceive as healthy the options offered by the hospital vending machines. Thirty-three percent of post-intervention participants recalled two or more sources of information integrated in the HPVM concept. No differences were found between pre- and post-intervention participants' readiness to adopt healthy diets. CONCLUSIONS: While the HPVM project had challenges as well as strengths, vending machines offering healthy snacks are feasible in hospital settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".