Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33779712›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2021

Association of WIC Participation and Electronic Benefits Transfer Implementation.

Aditi Vasan, Chén C Kenyon, Chris Feudtner, Alexander G Fiks, Atheendar S Venkataramani

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. WIC benefits and evaluation challenges.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2022
    Article
  16. Integrating Produce Prescriptions into the Healthcare System: Perspectives from Key Stakeholders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aditi VasanNational Clinician Scholars Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Chén C KenyonDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Chris FeudtnerDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Alexander G FiksDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Atheendar S VenkataramaniLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
University of Pennsylvania · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · US

Funding

Incentive-based Mobile Health Adherence Intervention for High Risk Children with AsthmaK23HL136842 · NHLBI · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI KENYON, CHEN COLLIN · 2019 to 2023
$908k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL136842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is an important source of nutritional support and education for women and children living in poverty; although WIC participation confers clear health benefits, only 50% of eligible women and children currently receive WIC. In 2010, Congress mandated that states transition WIC benefits by 2020 from paper vouchers to electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards, which are more convenient to use, are potentially less stigmatizing, and may improve WIC participation. Objective: To estimate the state-level association between transition from paper vouchers to EBT and subsequent WIC participation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation of state-level WIC monthly benefit summary administrative data regarding participation between October 1, 2014, and November 30, 2019, compared states that did and did not implement WIC EBT during this time period. Difference-in-differences regression modeling allowed associations to vary by time since policy implementation and included stratified analyses for key subgroups (pregnant and postpartum women, infants younger than 1 year, and children aged 1-4 years). All models included dummy variables denoting state, year, and month as covariates. Data analyses were performed between March 1 and June 15, 2020. Exposures: Statewide transition from WIC paper vouchers to WIC EBT cards, specified by month and year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly number of state residents enrolled in WIC. Results: A total of 36 states implemented WIC EBT before or during the study period. EBT and non-EBT states had similar baseline rates of poverty and food insecurity. Three years after statewide WIC EBT implementation, WIC participation increased by 7.78% (95% CI, 3.58%-12.15%) in exposed states compared with unexposed states. In stratified analyses, WIC participation increased by 7.22% among pregnant and postpartum women (95% CI, 2.54%-12.12%), 4.96% among infants younger than 1 year (95% CI, 0.95%-9.12%), and 9.12% among children aged 1 to 4 years (95% CI, 3.19%-15.39%; P for interaction = .20). Results were robust to adjustment for state unemployment and poverty rates, population, and Medicaid expansion status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the transition from paper vouchers to WIC EBT was associated with a significant and sustained increase in enrollment. Interventions that simplify the process of redeeming benefits may be critical for addressing low rates of enrollment in WIC and other government benefit programs.

Indexed as

ElectronicsFemaleFood AssistanceHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant WelfareMaternal WelfarePovertyPregnancyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33779712
PMCPMC8008428
OpenAlexW3142651585

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.