Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26054549›Full record

Trial reportPublic health nutrition2016

Buying health: assessing the impact of a consumer-side vegetable subsidy on purchasing, consumption and waste.

Noah Smith-Drelich

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Changes to Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Waste When Households Receive Free Produce.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Noah Smith-DrelichStanford Law School,JD,Stanford University,MS - E-IPER (Health Policy),2860 US Highway 51 North,Anna,IL 62906,USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultDietFemaleFinancing, GovernmentFood AssistanceFruitHealth PromotionHumansMalePublic HealthRegression AnalysisSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesVegetablesYoung AdultBehavioural psychologyPrice interventionPublic healthVegetable subsidy

Identifiers

PMID26054549
PMCPMC10270871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.