Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30834852›Full record

SynthesisPublic health nutrition2019

A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA.

Ruopeng An, Junjie Wang, Junyi Liu, Jing Shen, Emily Loehmer, Jennifer McCaffrey

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of the SuperShelf Intervention in Choice-Based Food Pantries.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Fresh Shelves, Healthy Pantries: A Pilot Intervention Trial in Baltimore City Food Pantries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Trial
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Ruopeng An1Guangzhou Sport University,Guangzhou,Guangdong 510620,People's Republic of China.
Junjie Wang4Department of Physical Education,Dalian University of Technology,Dalian,People's Republic of China.
Junyi Liu5Soka University of America,Aliso Viejo,CA,USA.
Jing Shen6Beijing Sport University,Beijing,People's Republic of China.
Emily Loehmer7University of Illinois Extension,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,Champaign,IL,USA.
Jennifer McCaffrey7University of Illinois Extension,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,Champaign,IL,USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFood pantries play a critical role in combating food insecurity. The objective of the present work was to systematically review and synthesize scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of food pantry-based interventions in the USA.

designKeyword/reference search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published until May 2018 that met the following criteria.

settingfood pantry and/or food bank in the USA; study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) or pre-post study; outcomes: diet-related outcomes (e.g. nutrition knowledge, food choice, food security, diet quality); study subjects: food pantry/bank clients.

resultsFourteen articles evaluating twelve distinct interventions identified from the keyword/reference search met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Five were RCT and the remaining seven were pre-post studies. All studies found that food pantry-based interventions were effective in improving participants' diet-related outcomes. In particular, the nutrition education interventions and the client-choice intervention enhanced participants' nutrition knowledge, cooking skills, food security status and fresh produce intake. The food display intervention helped pantry clients select healthier food items. The diabetes management intervention reduced participants' glycaemic level.

conclusionsFood pantry-based interventions were found to be effective in improving participants' diet-related outcomes. Interventions were modest in scale and usually short in follow-up duration. Future studies are warranted to address the challenges of conducting interventions in food pantries, such as shortage in personnel and resources, to ensure intervention sustainability and long-term effectiveness.

Indexed as

Food AssistanceFood SupplyDietFoodHumansUnited StatesDietFood bankFood pantryInterventionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30834852
PMCPMC10260889

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.