ArticlePublic health nutrition2023
Nutrition Program Fidelity Assessment tool: a framework for optimising implementation in military dining facilities.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to develop, refine and assess the usefulness of the Go for Green
designDuring a multi-site study to evaluate G4G 2.0 on meal quality and diner satisfaction, subject matter experts developed and refined a PFA tool based on eight programme requirements (PR). They identified tasks critical to programme success and corresponding benchmarks, then proposed expansion of several PR and developed a scoring system to assess adherence. Three PFA were conducted (Site 1, Site 2A and Site B).
settingTwo DFAC in the USA implementing the G4G 2.0 programme.
participantsMilitary DFAC participating in a G4G 2.0 evaluation study.
resultsAfter G4G 2.0 implementation, Site 1 conducted a PFA and met benchmarks for eight of fifteen sections. At Site 2, a PFA was conducted after G4G 2.0 implementation (Site 2A) and one 3 months later (Site 2B) with twelve of fifteen and ten of fifteen sections meeting benchmarks, respectively.
conclusionResearch highlights the need to maximise implementation quality to ensure interventions are effective, achievable and efficient. Using a PFA tool to objectively assess nutrition interventions can inform programme fidelity, successes and opportunities for improvement. Results identify key areas that require additional training and resources to optimise access to nutrient-dense foods that support nutritional fitness. This feedback is critical for assessing potential programme impact on Service Members.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.