Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34742273›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Implementing food bank and healthcare partnerships: a pilot study of perspectives from charitable food systems in Texas.

Natalie S Poulos, Eileen K Nehme, Molly M O'Neil, Dorothy J Mandell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Increasing the Effectiveness of Rural, Regional and Remote Food Security Initiatives Through Place-Based Partnerships-A Qualitative Study.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Food Relief Charter for South Australia-Towards a Shared Vision for Pathways Out of Food Insecurity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalie S PoulosDepartment of Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, 11937 US Hwy 271, Tyler, TX, United States, 75708. npoulos@utsystem.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3543-0786
Eileen K NehmeDepartment of Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, 11937 US Hwy 271, Tyler, TX, United States, 75708.
Molly M O'NeilDepartment of Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, 11937 US Hwy 271, Tyler, TX, United States, 75708.
Dorothy J MandellDepartment of Community Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, 11937 US Hwy 271, Tyler, TX, United States, 75708.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartnerships between charitable food systems and healthcare systems have been forming across the country to support individuals and families experiencing food insecurity, yet little research has focused on these partnerships, particularly from a food bank perspective. The objective of this exploratory pilot study was to identify implementation challenges and facilitators of charitable food system and healthcare partnerships from the food bank perspective.

methodTexas food banks with existing food bank/healthcare partnerships were identify through website review and support from Feeding Texas. Interview questions were tailored to each interview, but all focused on identify program components of the food bank/healthcare partnership and implementation barriers/facilitators of the partnership. In total, six interviews were conducted with food bank/healthcare partnership leaders (n = 4) and charitable food system experts (n = 2) about their experiences of working with food bank/healthcare partnerships. All interviews were completed via Zoom and took between 30 and 60 min to completed. Detailed notes were taking during each interview, and immediately discussed with the complete research time to formulate broad implementation themes.

resultsInterviews suggest unique implementation challenges exist at all levels of food bank/healthcare partnerships including the partnership, program, and system levels. Partnership-level implementation challenges focused on issues of partnership scale and data collection, sharing, and analysis. Program-level implementation challenges focused on food and produce expectations. Structural-level implementation challenges included issues of food safety, subsidized food regulations, and patient privacy. Implementation facilitators included leadership support, mission compatibility/organizational readiness, food insecurity training, and identify of partnership champions.

conclusionsThis study adds to the growing interest in food bank/healthcare partnership as it highlights unique implementation challenges and facilitators for cross-sector partnerships between healthcare systems and community-based charitable food systems. Ultimately, we believe that collaborative discussion among leaders of charitable food systems and healthcare systems is needed to overcome outlined implementation challenges to better facilitate sustainable, equitable implementation of food bank/healthcare partnerships.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareLeadershipConfidentialityHumansPilot ProjectsTexasCharitable food systemsFood bank partnershipsFood insecurityHealthcare systemsHealth partnerships

Identifiers

PMID34742273
PMCPMC8572069
OpenAlexW3205413006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.