Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to healthy eating in a worksite cafeteria: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Worksite-based nutrition interventions can serve as access points to facilitate healthy eating and translate existing knowledge of cardiometabolic disease prevention. We explored perceptions, facilitators, and barriers for healthy eating in a cafeteria at a large worksite in Mexico City.

Methods

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in a large department store in Mexico City with ~ 1500 employees. We conducted eight focus group discussions (FGD) with 63 employees stratified by job category (sales, maintenance, shipping, restaurant, cafeteria, administrative staff, and sales managers). Employees were invited to participate in the FGD if they were at the store at the day and time of the FGD for their job type. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the thematic method. This process involved the researches´ familiarizing themselves with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing the themes, defining and naming themes, and then interpreting the data.

Results

Employees defined healthy eating as eating foods that are fresh, diverse, and prepared hygienically. The most commonly reported facilitators of healthy eating at the worksite were availability of affordable healthy food options and employees' high health awareness. Major barriers to healthy eating included unavailability of healthy foods, unpleasant taste of food, and preference for fatty foods and meat. For lower-wage workers, affordability was a major concern. Other barriers included lack of time to eat work and long working hours.

Conclusion

A broad range of factors affect healthy eating at the cafeteria, some related to nutrition and some related to the employees type of job. Availability of healthy, hygienic, and tasty food at an affordable price could lead to healthier food choices in the worksite cafeteria. These strategies, along with work schedules that allow sufficient time for healthy eating, may help improve dietary behaviors and health of employees.

SUBMITTER: Stern D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8141192 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice.Aims: To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers.Methods: We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician's world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role.Conclusion: There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher's responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.

Project description:ObjectiveCommunication failures between clinicians lead to poor patient outcomes. Critically injured patients have multiple injured organ systems and require complex multidisciplinary care from a wide range of healthcare professionals and communication failures are abundantly common. This study sought to determine barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between the consulting trauma, intensive care unit (ICU) team and specialty consultants for critically injured patients at an urban, safety-net, level 1 trauma centre.DesignAn observational qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication.SettingWe conducted observations of daily rounds in two trauma surgical ICUs and recorded the most frequently consulted teams.ParticipantsKey informant interviews after presenting clinical vignettes as discussion prompts were conducted with a broad range of clinicians from the ICUs and physicians and nurse practitioners from the consultant teams who were identified during the observations. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data of these 10 interviews were combined with primary transcript data from prior study (25 interviews) and analysed together because of the same setting with same themes. Independent coding of the transcripts, with iterative reconciliation, was performed by two coders.Outcomes measuresFacilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary communication were identified.ResultsA total of 35 interview transcripts were analysed. Cardiology and interventional radiology were the most frequently consulted teams. Consulting and consultant clinicians reported that perceived accessibility from the team seeking a consultation and the consultant team impacted interdisciplinary communication. Accessibility had a physical dimension as well as a psychological dimension. Accessibility was demonstrated by responsiveness between clinicians of different disciplines and in turn facilitated interdisciplinary communication. Social norms, cognitive biases, hierarchy and relationships were reported as both facilitators and barriers to accessibility, and therefore, interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionAccessibility impacted interdisciplinary communication between the consulting and the consultant team.Article summaryElucidates barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between consulting and consultant teams.

Project description:Background:To design effective nutrition education interventions for college students, research is needed to determine the factors influencing food choices. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived barriers and enablers of healthy eating in college students ages 18-24 at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. Methods:Prior to conducting focus groups, an interview guide was developed based on a literature review of relevant studies. The interview guide was successfully tested in the first focus group and used in the rest of the focus groups. Eleven focus groups with group sizes of two to six were conducted (n = 44). Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded in NVIVO11 using content analysis, and additional codes were added to the codebook based on emergent ideas from the transcripts. After completion of the final codebook, transcripts were recoded with the new codebook. Final code counts were used to identify overarching ideas based on the socio-ecological model of health, consisting of four levels of influence: individual (intrapersonal), social environmental (interpersonal), physical environmental (community settings), and macrosystem (societal). Results:The largest barriers according to level of influence in the socio-ecological model were nutrition knowledge deficit (individual), peer pressure (social environmental), unsupportive institutional environment (physical environmental), and cost (macrosystem). The largest enablers were nutrition knowledge (individual), parental influence (social environmental), an institutional environment with consistent healthy offerings (physical environmental), and social media (macrosystem). Some factors served as barriers for some participants and enablers for others, such as parental influence. Conclusion:Factors such as individual knowledge and parental support were cited as having a positive influence in promoting healthy eating, while factors such as the cost of living and food availability at college serve as barriers even for motivated students. Results from this study identify potential areas of intervention, such as improving nutrition knowledge (individual), offering more healthy options (physical environmental), or reducing cost of food (macrosystem). However, more research is needed to identify which level of intervention may be most effective in changing food habits, and which barriers or enablers are deciding factors in determining this population's food choices.