How the Gus Schumacher Produce Prescription Program Works: An Adaptation of a Nutrition Incentive Theory of Change.

The United States Department of Agriculture's Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) supports nutrition incentive (NI) and produce prescription programs (PPRs). PPRs allow healthcare providers to "prescribe" fruits and vegetables (FVs) to patients experiencing low income and/or chronic disease(s) and who screen positive for food insecurity. We developed a Theory of Change (TOC) that summarizes how and why PPRs work, identifies what the programs hope to achieve, and elucidates the causal pathways necessary to achieve their goals. We created the PPR TOC through an iterative, participatory process that adapted our previously developed GusNIP NI TOC. The participatory process involved food and nutrition security experts, healthcare providers, PPR implementors, and PPR evaluators reviewing the existing NI TOC and suggesting modifications to accurately reflect PPRs. The resulting TOC describes the mechanisms, assumptions, rationale, and underpinnings that lead to successful and equitable outcomes. Modifications of the NI TOC centered around equity and focused on inclusion of healthcare as an additional partner and the importance of health and healthcare utilization as outcomes. The TOC describes how the GusNIP PPR program reaches its goals. This understanding will be useful for PPR developers, implementers, funders, and evaluators for describing the pathways, assumptions, and foundations of successful PPRs.

The value of the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network in advancing the evidence base for effective nutrition and obesity policy: assessment using the Consolidated Framework for Collaborative Research.

INTRODUCTION: Addressing nutrition disparities and preventing obesity require multi-level interventions, including policies that address the nutrition environment and other social determinants of health. The Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research Evaluation Network (NOPREN) was established in 2009 to conduct transdisciplinary research and accelerate the translation and implementation of science-based policy interventions. This study examined NOPREN's collaborative practices and identified opportunities to improve network impact. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, we combined quantitative survey data (n = 106) and in-depth, qualitative interviews (n = 18) to evaluate the experiences of NOPREN members and understand the extent to which NOPREN was achieving its goals. RESULTS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Collaborative Research (CFCR), quantitative and qualitative results were organized into 11 themes. We find that NOPREN's structure and standardized processes facilitate connections to individuals and resources, foster relationships, and support effective cross-sector collaborations. Areas of improvement include capacity building and a more intentional approach towards recruitment of a diverse membership. CONCLUSION: A collaborative research network can build synergy across sectors and accelerate knowledge transfer. These findings will be used to inform the network's strategic priorities to maximize impact. Findings may also inform similar collaborative efforts for addressing complex public health problems.

Additional Fruit and Vegetable Vouchers for Pregnant WIC Clients: An Equity-Focused Strategy to Improve Food Security and Diet Quality.

Women with low household income and from racial/ethnic minority groups are at elevated risk of food insecurity. Food insecurity during pregnancy is associated with overall less healthy diets, lower intake of the pregnancy-supportive nutrients iron and folate, and significant variations in diet across the course of a month. The goal of this study was to explore the impact of an ongoing $40/month supplement for fruits and vegetables (F&Vs) provided to pregnant people enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women and Children (WIC). Our primary outcome was food insecurity using the USDA 6-item survey, and our secondary outcome was dietary intake of F&Vs based on the 10-item Dietary Screener Questionnaire. Participants in intervention and comparison counties completed surveys at enrollment and approximately three months later (n = 609). Mean ± SD food insecurity at baseline was 3.67 ± 2.79 and 3.47 ± 2.73 in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively, and the adjusted between-group change from baseline to follow-up in food insecurity was 0.05 [95% CI: −0.35, 0.44] (p > 0.05). F&V intake (in cup equivalents) was 2.56 ± 0.95 and 2.51 ± 0.89 at baseline in the two groups, and the adjusted mean between-group difference in changes from baseline was −0.06 [−0.23, 0.11] (p > 0.05). Recruitment and data collection for this study coincided with the most intensive of America's COVID relief efforts. Our results may indicate that small increases in highly targeted food resources make less of a difference in the context of larger, more general resources being provided to individuals and households in need.

Survey Fraud and the Integrity of Web-Based Survey Research.

Compared to traditional paper surveys, online surveys offer a convenient, efficient, and socially distant way to conduct human subjects research. The popularity of online research has grown in recent decades. However, without proper precautions, false respondents pose a serious risk to data integrity. In this paper, we describe our research team's own encounter with survey fraud, steps taken to preserve the integrity of our study, and implications for future public health research.

Comparison of Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Urban Low-Income US Adults Receiving a Produce Voucher in 2 Cities.

Importance: Fruit and vegetable vouchers have been implemented by cities and counties across the US to increase fruit and vegetable intake and thereby improve overall nutritional quality. Objective: To determine whether and why use of fruit and vegetable vouchers are associated with varied nutritional intake across different populations and environments. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based pre-post cohort study of 671 adult participants with low income before and during (6 months after initiation) participation in a 6-month program, fruit and vegetable vouchers were distributed for redemption at local San Francisco and Los Angeles neighborhood grocery and corner stores between 2017 and 2019. A transportability analysis was performed to identify factors that may explain variation in voucher use between cities. Exposure: Receipt of $20 per month in produce vouchers for 6 months from 2017 to 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in total fruits and vegetables (as defined by the US Department of Agriculture) consumed per person per day (change in cup-equivalents between month 6 and month 0). Results: A total of 671 adults (median age, 54.9 years [interquartile range, 45.0-65.0 years]; 61.7% female; 30.9% Black; 19.7% Hispanic) were enrolled. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake of 0.22 cup-equivalents per day overall (95% CI, 0.14-0.31 cup-equivalents; P < .001) was observed. However, the observed increase was larger in Los Angeles compared with San Francisco (0.64 cup-equivalents per day; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88 cup-equivalents vs 0.10 cup-equivalents per day; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19 cup-equivalents). When the concurrently sampled San Francisco group (n = 157) was weighted in transportability analysis to demographically match the Los Angeles group (n = 155) in observed covariates, the weighted San Francisco group had an estimated increase of 0.53 fruit and vegetable cup-equivalents per day (95% CI, 0.27- 0.79 cup-equivalents, P = .03), with income being the variable needed to allow the 95% confidence intervals to overlap between the weighted San Francisco and unweighted Los Angeles populations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the use of fruit and vegetable vouchers appeared to be associated with greater benefit among those with lower incomes, suggesting that further investigation of flat-rate rather than income-scaled benefits is warranted.

Effects Of Alternative Food Voucher Delivery Strategies On Nutrition Among Low-Income Adults.

Nutrition assistance programs are the subject of ongoing policy debates. Two proposals remain uninformed by existing evidence: whether restricting benefits to allow only fruit and vegetable purchases improves overall dietary intake, and whether more frequent distribution of benefits (weekly versus monthly) induces more fruit and vegetable consumption and less purchasing of calorie-dense foods. In a community-based trial, we randomly assigned participants to receive food vouchers that differed in what foods could be purchased (fruit and vegetables only or any foods) and in distribution schedule (in weekly or monthly installments, holding total monthly value constant). The use of vouchers for fruit and vegetables only did not yield significantly greater improvements than the unrestricted voucher did in terms of fruit and vegetable consumption or Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score. Weekly vouchers also failed to yield significantly greater improvements than monthly vouchers did. Proposed policies to make assistance more restricted or more frequent, while holding benefit value constant, might not improve nutrition among low-income Americans.