ArticlePublic health nutrition2019
A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients.
Article 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 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Qualitative perspectives on the implementation of an intervention transforming food pantry environments.BMC public health · 2026Trial
- 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 · 2024Trial
- Dietary intake of individuals receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and food pantry assistance in North Texas.Public health nutrition · 2023Trial
- Fresh Shelves, Healthy Pantries: A Pilot Intervention Trial in Baltimore City Food Pantries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Food pantry organizational features, nutrition environments, and partnerships: a community-engaged study in Southern California.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Transforming faith-based food pantries in the South Bronx into multiservice health centers.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Integrating Food and Care: Evaluating Impacts of Delaware Food Farmacy, a Food is Medicine Pilot for Maternal Health.Delaware journal of public health · 2025Article
- Behavioural economics intervention to implement a nutrition ranking system in food pantries: Be Well cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Assessing the nutrition knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors of food pantry managers: implications for healthier food environments.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Current Use and Demand for Digital Tools to Enhance Food Pantry Management: Findings from a Nationwide Survey.Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition · 2024Article
- Construct validity of the Charitable Food Nutrition Index.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Policy approaches to nutrition-focused food banking in industrialized countries: a scoping review.Nutrition reviews · 2023Article
- A food bank program to help food pantries improve healthy food choices: mixed methods evaluation of The Greater Boston Food Bank's Healthy Pantry Program.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Food Pantry Clients' Needs, Preferences, and Recommendations for Food Pantries: A Qualitative Study.Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition · 2023Article
- The charitable food system as a change agent.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Validating a Nutrition Ranking System for Food Pantries Using the Healthy Eating Index-2015.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Healthy Food Environments in Food Pantries: Lessons Learned from a Sodium Reduction Intervention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Applying the Healthy Eating Index-2015 in a Sample of Choice-Based Minnesota Food Pantries to Test Associations Between Food Pantry Inventory, Client Food Selection, and Client Diet.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2021Article
- Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test the effect of a behavioural economics intervention in two food pantries on the nutritional quality of foods available at the pantries and the foods selected by adults visiting food pantries.
designAn intervention (SuperShelf) was implemented in two food pantries (Sites A and B), with two other pantries (Sites C and D) serving as a control for pantry outcomes. The intervention aimed to increase the amount and variety of healthy foods (supply), as well as the appeal of healthy foods (demand) using behavioural economics strategies. Assessments included baseline and 4-month follow-up client surveys, client cart inventories, pantry inventories and environmental assessments. A fidelity score (range 0-100) was assigned to each intervention pantry to measure the degree of implementation. A Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-2010) score (range 0-100) was generated for each client cart and pantry.
settingFour Minnesota food pantries, USA.ParticipantsClients visiting intervention pantries before (n 71) and after (n 70) the intervention.
resultsFidelity scores differed by intervention site (Site A=82, Site B=51). At Site A, in adjusted models, client cart HEI-2010 scores increased on average by 11·8 points (P<0·0001), whereas there was no change at Site B. HEI-2010 pantry environment scores increased in intervention pantries (Site A=8 points, Site B=19 points) and decreased slightly in control pantries (Site C=-4 points, Site D=-3 points).
conclusionsWhen implemented as intended, SuperShelf has the potential to improve the nutritional quality of foods available to and selected by pantry clients.
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.