ArticlePreventive medicine2017
Ethical imperatives against item restriction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Federal Food Program Participation and Beverage Intake Among Families With Low Household Income.Journal of nutrition education and behavior · 2023Article
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and current restricted food expenditures: implications for policy.Public health nutrition · 2020Article
- SNAP judgments into the digital age: Reporting on food stamps varies significantly with time, publication type, and political leaning.PloS one · 2020Article
- Added Sugar and Dental Caries in Children: A Scientific Update and Future Steps.Dental clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and racial/ethnic disparities in food and beverage purchases.Public health nutrition · 2018Article
- Where do U.S. households purchase healthy foods? An analysis of food-at-home purchases across different types of retailers in a nationally representative dataset.Preventive medicine · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) is the federal government's largest form of food assistance, and a frequent focus of political and scholarly debate. Previous discourse in the public health community and recent proposals in state legislatures have suggested limiting the use of SNAP benefits on unhealthy food items, such as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). This paper identifies two possible underlying motivations for item restriction, health and morals, and analyzes the level of empirical support for claims about the current state of the program, as well as expectations about how item restriction would change participant outcomes. It also assesses how item restriction would reduce individual agency of low-income individuals, and identifies mechanisms by which this may adversely affect program participants. Finally, this paper offers alternative policies to promote healthier purchasing and eating among SNAP participants that can be pursued without reducing individual agency. Health advocates and officials must more fully weigh the attendant risks of implementing SNAP item restrictions, including the reduction of individual agency of a vulnerable population.
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.