WIC Participant Perspectives: Facilitated by Social Support, Challenged by Shopping Barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Characterize the facilitators and barriers to participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), among WIC participants, given recent program changes and underutilization. DESIGN: Qualitative data collected in April through May, 2024. SETTING: Eleven virtual focus groups and 2 interviews. PARTICIPANTS: English- and Spanish-speaking WIC participants (n = 44) randomly selected from a survey (n = 631) conducted in 19 states, 1 Indian Tribal Organization, and 1 US territory. PHENOMENON OF INTEREST: Facilitators and barriers to WIC participation, retention, and benefit redemption. ANALYSIS: Verbatim transcripts coded and analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: Facilitators of WIC participation included supportive WIC services, particularly WIC foods, nutrition education, especially for new parents, and breastfeeding support, as well as the provision of social support and the building of social capital, especially for women experiencing major life transitions. Barriers included limited initial understanding of WIC, misperceptions of benefits, and challenging shopping experiences, such as finding WIC-eligible foods and stigma. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Participants value WIC staff, programming, and social support, but misperceptions and negative shopping experiences remain barriers to participation. Highlighting opportunities for building social capital and expanding shopping options, such as self-checkout and online ordering, could improve retention and benefit usage, warranting further research amid WIC food package changes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".