Barriers and facilitators to implementing a pilot produce prescription program in a community health setting in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Produce prescription programs (PRx) are gaining traction in Canada and globally as an approach to promote food security and healthy diets. Unison Health and Community Services (Unison), a community health centre in Toronto, Canada, piloted a PRx program to promote food access and healthy eating for adults with experiences of food insecurity and chronic disease risk factors. In this study, we explored the barriers and facilitators to implementing a pilot PRx program in a community health setting to inform program improvements, including opportunities to better meet participant health needs and preferences. METHODS: Participant follow-up calls, focus group discussions, and semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted in person and online. Detailed call logs and interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify barriers and facilitators to program implementation. RESULTS: Key themes were identified across the five domains of the CFIR: (i) Innovation, (ii) Outer Setting, (iii) Inner Setting, (iv) Individuals, and (v) Implementation Process. In total, 19 themes were selected across 14 CFIR constructs, including six inductive sub-themes. The main barriers included the outdoor and public designs of the market, reduced staffing on the clinical team, and a lack of communication infrastructure between primary care providers, program providers, and program participants. Key facilitators included the integration of the PRx pilot into existing Unison programs, the inclusion of nutrition education workshops, and the person-centered and adaptable approach adopted by program providers. These facilitators supported participant referrals and program satisfaction, contributing to participants' desire to continue engaging in the program. CONCLUSIONS: This study, guided by the CFIR, revealed valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators that may influence the implementation of a PRx program in community health settings. Study findings emphasize the importance of team-based care to ensure program adaptability and support a person-centered approach. Identifying key champions within primary care teams is needed to strengthen referral pathways and communication with program providers. Future PRx programs may consider incorporating opportunities for knowledge sharing with participants and community-building activities to address important needs related to social connection, community belonging, and mental health.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".