MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409145748 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daaf020

Exploring the barriers and facilitators of continuous quality improvement for health promotion within healthcare food environments

2025· article· en· W4409145748 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura J. Kennedy, Meaghan Sim, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Sara Kirk, Catherine L. Mah

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHealth carePsychological interventionHealth promotionContext (archaeology)Quality managementNursingBusinessQualitative researchPromotion (chess)Public relationsHealth policyMarketingMedicinePublic healthService (business)Political scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become a widely accepted approach to optimize health services while lowering healthcare costs (Quintuple Aim) and has expanded from clinical interventions to health promotion. Retail food environments (e.g. hospital cafeterias, cafes) are of interest given the increased adoption of healthy eating policies and interventions to influence diet (e.g. price, promotion, placement and product). However, there is a lack of understanding of what organizational and policy processes are necessary to implement CQI for health promotion in healthcare. This research uses a qualitative multiple exploratory case study design to explore the barriers and facilitators of CQI for health promotion in healthcare retail food environments. This research occurred in a healthcare setting with an organizational Healthy Eating Policy applicable to staff, patients and visitors. We collected semi-structured interview data with 12 healthcare staff working in Nutrition & Food Services in a Canadian provincial health authority from January to June 2023. We used directed content analysis to analyze the data. We used the Inside out model to interpret cross-cutting organizational barriers and facilitators. Four cases of quality improvement interventions (Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles) were identified. Barriers included expertise to interpret nutrient criteria, lack of data, conflicting benchmarks (e.g. finance and health), third-party vendors, past negative experiences, and a lack of time to monitor and evaluate. Facilitators included an organizational Healthy Eating Policy, understanding community context, local knowledge, partnerships with researchers and leadership. This study revealed how overarching policies, accompanied by organizational support, facilitated quality improvement and engagement in CQI but also created barriers to routine practice and sustainability of health-promoting interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207