Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34682578›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

A Multi-Pronged Evaluation of a Healthy Food Access Initiative in Central Texas: Study Design, Methods, and Baseline Findings of the FRESH-Austin Evaluation Study.

Kathryn M Janda, Nalini Ranjit, Deborah Salvo, Aida Nielsen, Nika Akhavan, Martha Diaz, Pablo Lemoine, Joy Casnovsky, Alexandra van den Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Kathryn M JandaUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2121-553X
Nalini RanjitUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
Deborah SalvoPrevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Aida NielsenUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
Nika AkhavanUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
Martha DiazUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
Pablo LemoineCentro Nacional de Consultoría, Bogotá 110221, Colombia.
Joy CasnovskySustainable Food Center, Austin, TX 78702, USA.
Alexandra van den BergUTHealth School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.

Funding

Cancer Prevention and Control Research Training and Career Development ProgramT32CA057712 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Maria Eulalia Fernandez · 2018 to 2026
$3.2M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food insecurity and limited healthy food access are complex public health issues and warrant multi-level evaluations. The purpose of this paper was to present the overall study design and baseline results of the multi-pronged evaluation of a healthy food access (i.e., Fresh for Less (FFL)) initiative in Central Texas. The 2018-2021 FRESH-Austin study was a natural experiment that utilized a cluster random sampling strategy to recruit three groups of participants (total

Indexed as

Food SupplyPovertyFoodHumansIncomeTexasagent-based modelingbaseline datacommunity-specific researchfood security and healthy food access interventionmulti-level evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34682578
PMCPMC8535966

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.