Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039867›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2022

Caregiver Perspectives on Underutilization of WIC: A Qualitative Study.

Cristina M Gago, Jhordan O Wynne, Maggie J Moore, Alejandra Cantu-Aldana, Kelsey Vercammen, Laura Y Zatz, Kelley May, Tina Andrade, Terri Mendoza, Sarah L Stone and 5 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Cristina M GagoDepartments of Nutrition.
Jhordan O WynneDepartments of Nutrition.
Maggie J MooreDepartments of Nutrition.
Alejandra Cantu-AldanaDepartments of Nutrition.
Kelsey VercammenEpidemiology.
Laura Y ZatzDepartments of Nutrition.
Kelley MayMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tina AndradeMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Terri MendozaMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sarah L StoneMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Josiemer MatteiDepartments of Nutrition.
Kirsten K DavisonSchool of Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Eric B RimmDepartments of Nutrition.
Rachel ColchamiroMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Erica L KenneyDepartments of Nutrition.

Funding

The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR002541 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2018 to 2022
$93.0M
The Harvard Chan Education Program in Cancer Prevention and ControlT32CA057711 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Karen M. Emmons, ANNE LINDSAY FRAZIER · 2019 to 2026
$3.3M
CIHR 0492002603NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002541NCI NIH HHS T32 CA057711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federal program that improves the health of low-income women (pregnant and postpartum) and children up to 5 years of age in the United States. However, participation is suboptimal. We explored reasons for incomplete redemption of benefits and early dropout from WIC.

methodsIn 2020-2021, we conducted semistructured interviews to explore factors that influenced WIC program utilization among current WIC caregivers (n = 20) and caregivers choosing to leave while still eligible (n = 17) in Massachusetts. By using a deductive analytic approach, we developed a codebook grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

resultsThemes across both current and early-leaving participants included positive feelings about social support from the WIC clinic staff and savings offered through the food package. Participants described reduced satisfaction related to insufficient funds for fruits and vegetables, food benefits inflexibility, concerns about in-clinic health tests, and in-store item mislabeling. Participants described how electronic benefit transfer cards and smartphone apps eased the use of benefits and reduced stigma during shopping. Some participants attributed leaving early to a belief that they were taking benefits from others.

conclusionsCurrent and early-leaving participants shared positive WIC experiences, but barriers to full participation exist. Food package modification may lead to improved redemption and retention, including increasing the cash value benefit for fruits and vegetables and diversifying food options. Research is needed regarding the misperception that participation means "taking" benefits away from someone else in need.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultCaregiversChild, PreschoolFemaleFood AssistanceHumansInfantMalePovertyUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35039867
PMCPMC8934047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.