Search

Produce prescription projects are becoming increasingly common. This study explores perspectives and experiences of a sample of health care providers throughout the United States participating in implementing produce prescription projects with funding from the United States Department of Agriculture. Surveys (N = 34) were administered to collect demographic and descriptive data. Subsequently, individual key-informant interviews with participating health care providers (N = 16) were conducted via videoconference. Participants in this study included physicians and clinical staff (e.g., nursing, nutrition, social work) who work at health care organizations that facilitate a produce prescription project. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic qualitative analysis methods. Four cross-cutting key themes emerged. First, interviewees shared operational challenges, including lack of time/staff, difficulty with provider/patient engagement (some related to COVID-19), steep “trial and error” learning curve, and formidable barriers related to data sharing and research-related requirements (e.g., Institutional Review Board approvals). Second, interviewees elucidated their solutions, lessons learned, and emerging best practices as a response to challenges (e.g., importance of having a full-time paid staff member to manage PPR within clinic). Third, interviewees expressed satisfaction with produce prescription projects, particularly related to positive patient experiences (e.g., improved clinical outcomes and improved food security). Fourth, interviewees also shared appreciation for rigorous program evaluation to establish sustained funding and advance policies. However, they contextualized this appreciation within challenges outlined regarding collecting and sharing patient-related data outcomes.Findings provide emergent best practices and inform additional resources that are needed to sustainably implement and rigorously evaluate produce prescription projects.

Abstract Background Inappropriate gestational weight gain in pregnancy may negatively impact health outcomes for mothers and babies. While optimal gestational weight gain is often not acheived, effective counselling by antenatal health care providers is recommended. It is not known if gestational weight gain counselling practices differ by type of antenatal health care provider, namely, family physicians, midwives and obstetricians, and what barriers impede the delivery of such counselling. The objective of this study was to understand the counselling of family physicians, midwives and obstetricians in Ontario and what factors act as barriers and enablers to the provision of counselling about GWG. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven family physicians, six midwives and five obstetricians in Ontario, Canada, where pregnancy care is universally covered. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were employed. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Codes, categories and themes were generated using NVIVO software. Results Providers reported that they offered gestational weight gain counselling to all patients early in pregnancy. Counselling topics included gestational weight gain targets, nutrition & exercise, gestational diabetes prevention, while dispelling misconceptions about gestational weight gain. Most do not routinely address the adverse outcomes linked to gestational weight gain, or daily caloric intake goals for pregnancy. The health care providers all faced similar barriers to counselling including patient attitudes, social and cultural issues, and accessibility of resources. Patient enthusiasm and access to a dietician motivated health care providers to provide more in-depth gestational weight gain counselling. Conclusion Reported gestational weight gain counselling practices were similar between midwives, obstetricians and family physicians. Antenatal knowledge translation tools for patients and health care providers are needed, and would seem to be suitable for use across all three types of health care provider specialties.

Background: Inappropriate gestational weight gain in pregnancy may negatively impact health outcomes for mothers and babies. While optimal gestational weight gain is often not acheived, effective counselling by antenatal health care providers is recommended. It is not known if gestational weight gain counselling practices differ by type of antenatal health care provider, namely, family physicians, midwives and obstetricians, and what barriers impede the delivery of such counselling. The objective of this study was to understand the counselling of family physicians, midwives and obstetricians in Ontario and what factors act as barriers and enablers to the provision of counselling about GWG.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven family physicians, six midwives and five obstetricians in Ontario, Canada, where pregnancy care is universally covered. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were employed. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Codes, categories and themes were generated using NVIVO software.Results: Providers reported that they offered gestational weight gain counselling to all patients early in pregnancy. Counselling topics included gestational weight gain targets, nutrition & exercise, gestational diabetes prevention, while dispelling misconceptions about gestational weight gain. Most do not routinely address the adverse outcomes linked to gestational weight gain, or daily caloric intake goals for pregnancy. The health care providers all faced similar barriers to counselling including patient attitudes, social and cultural issues, and accessibility of resources. Patient enthusiasm and access to a dietician motivated health care providers to provide more in-depth gestational weight gain counselling.Conclusion: Reported gestational weight gain counselling practices were similar between midwives, obstetricians and family physicians. Antenatal knowledge translation tools for patients and health care providers are needed, and would seem to be suitable for use across all three types of health care provider specialties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Produce prescription projects are becoming increasingly common. This study explores perspectives and experiences of a sample of health care providers throughout the United States participating in implementing produce prescription projects with funding from the United States Department of Agriculture. Surveys (N = 34) were administered to collect demographic and descriptive data. Subsequently, individual key-informant interviews with participating health care providers (N = 16) were conducted via videoconference. Participants in this study included physicians and clinical staff (e.g., nursing, nutrition, social work) who work at health care organizations that facilitate a produce prescription project. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic qualitative analysis methods. Four cross-cutting key themes emerged. First, interviewees shared operational challenges, including lack of time/staff, difficulty with provider/patient engagement (some related to COVID-19), steep "trial and error" learning curve, and formidable barriers related to data sharing and research-related requirements (e.g., Institutional Review Board approvals). Second, interviewees elucidated their solutions, lessons learned, and emerging best practices as a response to challenges (e.g., importance of having a full-time paid staff member to manage PPR within clinic). Third, interviewees expressed satisfaction with produce prescription projects, particularly related to positive patient experiences (e.g., improved clinical outcomes and improved food security). Fourth, interviewees also shared appreciation for rigorous program evaluation to establish sustained funding and advance policies. However, they contextualized this appreciation within challenges outlined regarding collecting and sharing patient-related data outcomes. Findings provide emergent best practices and inform additional resources that are needed to sustainably implement and rigorously evaluate produce prescription projects., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)