Evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of the Healthy Together program for immigrant and refugee families in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Healthy Together (HT) is an innovative family education program focused on bringing families together to promote physical activity and healthy eating. The HT program was implemented in 10 community-based organizations across Canada offering services to immigrant and refugee families. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of HT when offered to these families. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional, non-comparative design was used. Caregiver participants were invited to complete a survey at the end of 15, 30 or 24 HT sessions. Trained program facilitators and directors of community-based organizations also provided feedback on the program. Findings Among the 203 caregiver participants, 135 (64%) were born outside of Canada. These caregivers were more likely to attend 50% or more of the HT sessions than Canadian-born caregivers. Survey responses show that the HT program was acceptable to immigrant and refugee caregivers and held important benefits for families including positive changes in healthy eating and physical activity, strengthening social connections and learning about community services and resources. Areas for enhancing the HT program for immigrant and refugee families were identified by participant caregivers and community organizations delivering the program. Practical implications The HT program demonstrates the value of family-centered program models in supporting immigrant and refugee families in establishing healthy lifestyles and building social connections in ways that hold promise for long-term impact. Originality/value The HT program model demonstrates strong potential to fill gaps in community programming for immigrant and refugee families. Although focused on promoting healthy lifestyles, the program extends additional benefits that can positively influence resettlement trajectories. The findings contribute to the growing field of implementation studies that are focused on expanding the reach and impact of community health interventions in a real-world setting while reaching multiple target populations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".