Patients’ experiences with a community fruit and vegetable box program prescribed by their health provider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is "the state of being without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food". Observational studies have associated food insecurity with many negative health effects including the development and exacerbations of chronic diseases, higher health care use and increased mortality. Health care providers prescribing food is a growing area of interest and research, however it is not known how patients feel about receiving fruit and vegetable prescriptions (FVRx) from their health provider versus other means of food provision. This pilot study was conducted to explore the experiences and opinions of Canadian adults with food insecurity who were recipients of a FVRx box program prescribed by their health provider. METHODS: Potential participants were recruited to 3 focus groups using flyers included in their monthly food box. Questions were kept open to encourage participation of all group members. The focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by the research team using descriptive qualitative research methodology. RESULTS: Participants described shame and frustration trying to obtain enough food through local food banks. In comparison, they perceived their team dietitian, family physician or addictions physician as directly helping them with their health by prescribing food. The boxed fruit and vegetables were prepared in many ways and often shared to reduce waste and to reduce the food insecurity of extended family members. Positive effects of the FVRx on physical and mental health were reported. Participants believed that follow up with their health provider helped support them and their behavioural changes towards better nutrition. Limitations of the program included lack of choice, non-flexible pick-up times and the program being limited to 6 months. Being able to choose their own fruit and vegetables, instead of receiving a set box, was suggested by most to help meal planning and to increase autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Health providers prescribing FVRx boxes to adult patients with food insecurity was positively received in this study. Evaluation of similar programs in other regions in Canada and internationally, and comparison of food prescriptions to basic income guarantee programs is recommended.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".