Trial reportPublic health nutrition2022
Perceptions of a food benefit programme that includes financial incentives for the purchase of fruits and vegetables and restrictions on the purchase of foods high in added sugar.
Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Inclusion of Food Purchase Restrictions and Incentives in a Food Benefit Program on Diet Quality and Food Purchasing: Results From a Randomized Trial.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2024Trial
- An environmental scan of financial incentives to increase access to healthy foods: How, how much, and how often?BMC public health · 2025Article
- Stretch your SNAP: Stakeholder perspectives of a novel benefits program to enhance diet quality.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report perspectives of participants in a food benefit programme that includes foods high in added sugar (FAS) restrictions and FAS restrictions paired with fruits and vegetables (F/V) incentives.
designRandomised experimental trial in which participant perspectives were an exploratory study outcome.
settingParticipants were randomised into one of three Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-like food benefit programme groups: (1) restriction: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits; (2) restriction paired with incentive: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits and 30 % financial incentive on eligible F/V purchased using benefits; or (3) control: same food purchasing rules as SNAP. Participants were asked questions to assess programme satisfaction.
participantsAdults in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, eligible for but not currently participating in SNAP who completed baseline and follow-up study measures (n 254).
resultsAmong remaining households in each group, most found the programme helpful in buying nutritious foods (88·2 %-95·7 %) and were satisfied with the programme (89·1 %-93·0 %). Sensitivity analysis results indicate that reported helpfulness and satisfaction with the programme may in some instances be lower among the restriction and the restrictions paired with incentive groups in comparison to the control group.
conclusionsA food benefit programme that includes restriction on purchase of FAS or restriction paired with a financial incentive for F/V purchases may be acceptable to most SNAP-eligible households with children.
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.