Trial reportPublic health nutrition2016
Buying health: assessing the impact of a consumer-side vegetable subsidy on purchasing, consumption and waste.
Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of the consumer and neighbourhood food environment on dietary intake and obesity-related outcomes: A systematic review of causal impact studies.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Pooled it
- Households Provided Free Produce Require Intensive Intervention to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Reduce Plate Waste: A Randomized Trial.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Trial
- Changes to Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Waste When Households Receive Free Produce.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- An environmental scan of financial incentives to increase access to healthy foods: How, how much, and how often?BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the impact of a reimbursement-based consumer subsidy on vegetable expenditures, consumption and waste.
designTwo-arm randomized controlled trial; two-week baseline observation period, three-week intervention period. Participants' vegetable expenditures, consumption and waste were monitored using receipts collection and through an FFQ. During the intervention period, the treatment group received reimbursement of up to 50 US dollars ($) for purchased vegetables.
settingParticipants were solicited from Palo Alto, CA, USA using materials advertising a 'consumer behavior study' and a small participation incentive. To prevent selection bias, solicitation materials did not describe the specific behaviour being evaluated. SUBJECTS: One hundred and fifty potential participants responded to the solicitations and 144 participants enrolled in the study; 138 participants completed all five weekly surveys.
resultsAccounting for the control group (n 69) and the two-week baseline period, the intervention significantly impacted the treatment group's (n 69) vegetable expenditures (+$8.16 (sd 2.67)/week, P<0.01), but not vegetable consumption (+1.3 (sd 1.2) servings/week, P=0.28) or waste (-0.23 (sd 1.2) servings/week, P=0.60).
conclusionsThe consumer subsidy significantly increased participants' vegetable expenditures, but not consumption or waste, suggesting that this type of subsidy might not have the effects anticipated. Reimbursement-based consumer subsidies may therefore not be as useful a policy tool for impacting vegetable consumption as earlier studies have suggested. Moreover, moderation analysis revealed that the subsidy's effect on participants' vegetable expenditures was significant only in men. Additional research should seek to determine how far reaching gender-specific effects are in this context. Further research should also examine the effect of a similar consumer subsidy on high-risk populations and explore to what extent increases in participants' expenditures are due to the purchase of more expensive vegetables, purchasing of vegetables during the study period that were consumed outside the study period, or a shift from restaurant vegetable consumption to grocery vegetable consumption.
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.