Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Menu Labeling in a Cafeteria Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mandatory and voluntary menu-labeling policies are increasingly common to support informed food choices among consumers. This study sought to examine stakeholder perspectives of developing, implementing, and maintaining a voluntary menu-labeling program in a hospital cafeteria setting. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 9 key cafeteria stakeholders. Data were coded by 2 independent researchers. Themes were generated deductively around 4 key themes: (1) motivation for the program; (2) program and menu development; (3) program implementation process; and, (4) "lessons learned," and inductively as they emerged from interview transcripts. These themes were mapped onto Damschroder's Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Motivations for the program were both internal and external to enable consumers to make educated food choices. Barriers to implementation included financial resources, digital menu board maintenance, and availability of healthy options from providers. Supports included availability of nutritional analysis software and nutritional information, and controlled food preparation. Ownership, program adaptation, a supportive collegial environment, a program champion and a culture valuing healthy eating were conducive to successful implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Both internal and external factors can support the voluntary implementation of menu-labeling programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".