Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805495›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

USDA Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Vendor Criteria: An Examination of US Administrative Agency Variations.

Matthew J Landry, Kim Phan, Jared T McGuirt, Alek Ostrander, Lilian Ademu, Mia Seibold, Kathleen McCallops, Tara Tracy, Sheila E Fleischhacker, Allison Karpyn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Matthew J LandryStanford Prevention Research Center, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2285-7702
Kim PhanHarvard College, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Jared T McGuirtDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA.
Alek OstranderSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Lilian AdemuCollege of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7395-2609
Mia SeiboldCenter for Research in Education & Social Policy, College of Education & Human Development, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Kathleen McCallopsCenter for Research in Education & Social Policy, College of Education & Human Development, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6307-4363
Tara TracyCenter for Research in Education & Social Policy, College of Education & Human Development, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Sheila E FleischhackerGeorgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC 20001, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6503-1439
Allison KarpynCenter for Research in Education & Social Policy, College of Education & Human Development, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-5101

Funding

CDC HHS 5U48DP00498-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The food retail environment has been directly linked to disparities in dietary behaviors and may in part explain racial and ethnic disparities in pregnancy-related deaths. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, is associated with improved healthy food and beverage access due to its requirement for minimum stock of healthy foods and beverages in WIC-eligible stores. The selection and authorization criteria used to authorize WIC vendors varies widely from state to state with little known about the specific variations. This paper reviews and summarizes the differences across 16 of these criteria enacted by 89 WIC administrative agencies: the 50 states, the District of Columbia, five US Territories, and 33 Indian Tribal Organizations. Vendor selection and authorization criteria varied across WIC agencies without any consistent pattern. The wide variations in criteria and policies raise questions about the rational for inconsistency. Some of these variations, in combination, may result in reduced access to WIC-approved foods and beverages by WIC participants. For example, minimum square footage and/or number of cash register criteria may limit vendors to larger retail operations that are not typically located in high-risk, under-resourced communities where WIC vendors are most needed. Results highlight an opportunity to convene WIC stakeholders to review variations, their rationale, and implications thereof especially as this process could result in improved policies to ensure and improve healthy food and beverage access by WIC participants. More work remains to better understand the value of state WIC vendor authorization authority, particularly in states that have provided stronger monitoring requirements. This work might also examine if and how streamlining WIC vendor criteria (or at least certain components of them) across regional areas or across the country could provide an opportunity to advance interstate commerce and promote an equitable supply of food across the food system, while ensuring the protection for local, community-oriented WIC vendors.

Indexed as

Food AssistanceChildCommerceDistrict of ColumbiaFemaleFood SupplyHumansInfantPregnancyUnited StatesUnited States Department of AgricultureFederal Nutrition Assistance Programfood policyhealth food accesshealthy in-store marketinginfants and childrenWICwomen

Identifiers

PMID33805495
PMCPMC8037245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.