Food beliefs and practices in urban poor communities in Accra: implications for health interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor communities in low and middle income countries are reported to experience a higher burden of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and nutrition-related NCDs. Interventions that build on lay perspectives of risk are recommended. The objective of this study was to examine lay understanding of healthy and unhealthy food practices, factors that influence food choices and the implications for developing population health interventions in three urban poor communities in Accra, Ghana. METHODS: Thirty lay adults were recruited and interviewed in two poor urban communities in Accra. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed thematically. The analysis was guided by the socio-ecological model which focuses on the intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, structural and policy levels of social organisation. RESULTS: Food was perceived as an edible natural resource, and healthy in its raw state. A food item retained its natural, healthy properties or became unhealthy depending on how it was prepared (e.g. frying vs boiling) and consumed (e.g. early or late in the day). These food beliefs reflected broader social food norms in the community and incorporated ideas aligned with standard expert dietary guidelines. Healthy cooking was perceived as the ability to select good ingredients, use appropriate cooking methods, and maintain food hygiene. Healthy eating was defined in three ways: 1) eating the right meals; 2) eating the right quantity; and 3) eating at the right time. Factors that influenced food choice included finances, physical and psychological state, significant others and community resources. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that beliefs about healthy and unhealthy food practices are rooted in multi-level factors, including individual experience, family dynamics and community factors. The factors influencing food choices are also multilevel. The implications of the findings for the design and content of dietary and health interventions are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".