ArticleNutrients2025
A Qualitative Study of Collaborative Food Programs: Insights from a FQHC-University Partnership During COVID-19.
Article in Nutrients, 2025. 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.
- Advancing Food Is Medicine Research: An EPIS-Informed Qualitative Study of Stakeholder Views.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aims to fill gaps in the existing literature through a qualitative evaluation of stakeholders involved in Food Is Medicine (FIM) programs. The primary objective was to examine the structural components, implementation process, and perceived impact of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Venice Family Clinic (VFC) Emergency Prepared Meal Program (UCLA-VFC Food Program), developed as a collaboration between a university and Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) during a period of community crisis. A secondary objective was to compare this program with three other FIM initiatives, identifying convergences and divergences in design and effectiveness.
methodsThe methodology involved semi-structured interviews conducted with stakeholders across all four programs. Participants were recruited based on their direct involvement with program ideation, design, or implementation. Interviews were conducted online between July and September 2022, with 11 stakeholders. A thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed responses using an inductive thematic analysis.
resultsKey findings highlighted four recurrent themes: (1) the critical role of leadership and a collaborative culture; (2) the importance of community partnerships and health education; (3) challenges related to logistics, funding, and sustainability; and (4) the need for assessment and evaluation. These findings provide valuable insight into the design of future FIM interventions, particularly those embedded in healthcare settings.
conclusionsIn conclusion, this study offers preliminary evidence supporting the unique potential of university-community partnerships to address food insecurity. Unlike previous research that emphasized clinical outcomes, our findings provide a contextualized understanding of programmatic implementation. While further quantitative evaluation is necessary, this work lays the groundwork for a collaborative model between various entities including universities, healthcare systems, clinics, and community health/food services aimed at addressing social determinants of health.
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.