Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33749765›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Comparison of Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Urban Low-Income US Adults Receiving a Produce Voucher in 2 Cities.

Sanjay Basu, Melissa Akers, Seth A Berkowitz, Kevin Josey, Dean Schillinger, Hilary Seligman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06953336 (Improving Dietary Quality and Health Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

NCT06953336 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Improving Dietary Quality and Health Outcomes: A Fruit and Vegetable Voucher Program for Kidney Transplant Patients With Food Insecurity.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2025 to 2026Enrolled19ConditionsFood Insecurity, Kidney TransplantArmsFruit and Vegetable Voucher Support Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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.

Sanjay BasuCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Melissa AkersCenter for Vulnerable Populations, Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital/University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.
Seth A BerkowitzDivision of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
Kevin JoseyDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dean SchillingerCenter for Vulnerable Populations, Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital/University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.
Hilary SeligmanCenter for Vulnerable Populations, Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital/University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.

Funding

ZIDOVUDINE &LAMIVUDINE &NEVIRAPINE COMBINATION THERAPY IN HIV 1 INFM01RR001271 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KESSLER, DAVID A · 1985 to 2006
$22.7M
Research BaseP30DK063720 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI VAISSE, CHRISTIAN · 2003 to 2019
$21.8M
UCSF Nutrition Obesity Research CenterP30DK098722 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHRISTIAN VAISSE · 2015 to 2026
$14.6M
Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Translational Research Core - Health Engagement & Action Translational (HEAT)P30DK092924 · NIDDK · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Alyce Sophia Adams, HILARY Kessler SELIGMAN · 2011 to 2026
$9.2M
Testing combinations of population interventions to encourage healthy eatingR01DK116852 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SCHILLINGER, DEAN · 2018 to 2022
$3.7M
Designing Food Voucher Programs to Reduce Disparities in Healthy DietsR01HL132814 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SELIGMAN, HILARY KESSLER · 2016 to 2020
$3.3M
Evaluation of Natural Experiments of Nutrition Assistance to Prevent and Control Diabetes among Low-Income CommunitiesU18DP006526 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SCHILLINGER, DEAN · 2020 to 2024
$1.9M
Understanding & Overcoming Food Insecurity in Diabetes PatientsK23DK109200 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BERKOWITZ, SETH A · 2016 to 2020
$973k
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U18 DP006526NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR001271NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL132814NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK109200NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK063720NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092924NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK098722NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK116852
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Fruit and vegetable vouchers have been implemented by cities and counties across the US to increase fruit and vegetable intake and thereby improve overall nutritional quality. Objective: To determine whether and why use of fruit and vegetable vouchers are associated with varied nutritional intake across different populations and environments. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a population-based pre-post cohort study of 671 adult participants with low income before and during (6 months after initiation) participation in a 6-month program, fruit and vegetable vouchers were distributed for redemption at local San Francisco and Los Angeles neighborhood grocery and corner stores between 2017 and 2019. A transportability analysis was performed to identify factors that may explain variation in voucher use between cities. Exposure: Receipt of $20 per month in produce vouchers for 6 months from 2017 to 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in total fruits and vegetables (as defined by the US Department of Agriculture) consumed per person per day (change in cup-equivalents between month 6 and month 0). Results: A total of 671 adults (median age, 54.9 years [interquartile range, 45.0-65.0 years]; 61.7% female; 30.9% Black; 19.7% Hispanic) were enrolled. An increase in fruit and vegetable intake of 0.22 cup-equivalents per day overall (95% CI, 0.14-0.31 cup-equivalents; P < .001) was observed. However, the observed increase was larger in Los Angeles compared with San Francisco (0.64 cup-equivalents per day; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88 cup-equivalents vs 0.10 cup-equivalents per day; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19 cup-equivalents). When the concurrently sampled San Francisco group (n = 157) was weighted in transportability analysis to demographically match the Los Angeles group (n = 155) in observed covariates, the weighted San Francisco group had an estimated increase of 0.53 fruit and vegetable cup-equivalents per day (95% CI, 0.27- 0.79 cup-equivalents, P = .03), with income being the variable needed to allow the 95% confidence intervals to overlap between the weighted San Francisco and unweighted Los Angeles populations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the use of fruit and vegetable vouchers appeared to be associated with greater benefit among those with lower incomes, suggesting that further investigation of flat-rate rather than income-scaled benefits is warranted.

Indexed as

DietEatingFruitVegetablesAgedCohort StudiesFemaleFood AssistanceHumansLos AngelesMaleMiddle AgedPovertySan FranciscoUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID33749765
PMCPMC7985725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.