Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32524927›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2020

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and current restricted food expenditures: implications for policy.

Andrea Leschewski, Annemarie Kuhns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Andrea LeschewskiNess School of Management and Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD57007, USA.
Annemarie KuhnsFood Markets Branch, Food Economics Division, USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNational concerns over food insecurity and obesity have prompted legislation seeking to further restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases. The objective of this study is to provide insight on the potential impact of proposed purchase restrictions by comparing SNAP participant and income-eligible non-participants' expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods, that is, hot foods, prepared foods, alcohol, vitamins and meal supplements.

designCross-sectional study. Bivariate analysis and multivariable regression analysis with an instrumental variables approach were employed to compare the probability of purchasing and expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods among SNAP participants and income-eligible non-participants.

settingNational Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey, 2012-2013.

participants2513 households, of which 1316 were SNAP participants and 1197 were income-eligible non-participants.

resultsBoth the share of households purchasing and household expenditures on current SNAP-restricted foods were similar among SNAP participants and income-eligible non-participants.

conclusionsResults provide further empirical evidence that proposed SNAP purchase restrictions on sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and luxury foods are unlikely to have a meaningful effect on SNAP household food purchases.

Indexed as

Food AssistanceNutrition PolicyCross-Sectional StudiesFoodFood SupplyHumansPolicyPovertyExpendituresInstrumental variablesNational Household Food Acquisition and Purchase SurveyPurchase restrictionSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Identifiers

PMID32524927
PMCPMC10200461

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.