Food uniting neighbours (f.u.n.): a pilot study exploring the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of co-designed interventions to improve food access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity remains a critical issue in Canada, with 15.6% of households affected. Food access, an important component of food security, reflects the ability of individuals to secure food. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of five co-designed interventions designed to improve nutritious food access in the Onward Willow neighbourhood of Guelph, ON. METHODS: Thirteen Community Advisors worked with University of Guelph researchers and used co-design to develop, implement, and pilot test five interventions to improve food access: community cafés, food skills workshops, grocery gift cards, gardening materials and workshops, and transportation support. The interventions were pilot tested with 159 community members, and feasibility and acceptability were assessed through surveys and interviews. Preliminary impact was assessed through quantitative pre-post or post-only Likert-scale survey measures. RESULTS: Findings show that the interventions were feasible and acceptable as all interventions were implemented per protocol and participant satisfaction was high across all interventions. Post-only evaluations identified that participants perceived that the community cafés helped to increase community connection and that the transportation support made it easier to have healthy foods available in their home. Pre-post evaluations revealed that the food skills workshops improved participants' sense of community with a medium effect size (median = 4.12 [IQR 3.87-4.47] to 4.12 [IQR 3.91-4.87], p = .04, r = .33) and that the gardening materials and workshops resulted in increased fruit and vegetable availability with a large effect size (median = 3.00 [IQR 2.00-3.00] to 4.00 [IQR 3.00 to 4.00], p = .04, r = .78). Grocery gift cards did not result in any significant changes in food access outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that directly engage communities in creating solutions can be feasible, acceptable, and potentially effective. Future research is needed to explore long-term impacts of these interventions on diet quality and broader health outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".