ArticleHealth promotion international2026
Facilitating food security systems change in regional Australia through a strengths-based, co-design process.
Article in Health promotion international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Food security is a multifaceted, 'wicked' issue that refers to the sufficient physical, social, and economic access to food at all times. Given its complexity, food security action requires a systems-based, collaborative, and adaptive approach. This paper outlines the application of a strengths-based, co-design process to support food security systems change among government and community-led initiatives operating in rural, regional, and remote areas of Western Australia. Baseline, semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders of food initiatives to understand whether and how the initiatives were contributing to food security systems change and identify the 'windows of opportunity' where initiatives could be strengthened. Participants co-designed actions to address the 'windows of opportunity' and enhance their initiatives. Six months after the co-design process, follow-up interviews were conducted to understand which actions had been implemented. Interview data were analysed thematically using NVivo. Twenty-seven initiative leaders co-designed an action plan, which included 244 actions in total. Based on the 10 six-month follow-up interviews that were conducted, 28 actions were implemented across nine initiatives. Initiative leaders were most likely to implement actions that required fewer resources and could leverage existing activities in comparison to actions that required collaborating or engaging with government representatives. To enhance food security systems change, initiative leaders require support to undertake actions related to government advocacy and collaborating with government organizations.
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.