Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36161127›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022

Produce prescription projects: Challenges, solutions, and emerging best practices - Perspectives from health care providers.

Sarah A Stotz, Nadine Budd Nugent, Ronit Ridberg, Carmen Byker Shanks, Ka Her, Amy L Yaroch, Hilary Seligman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05978843 (Comparison of Produce Prescription Benefit Dosage on Redemption), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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.

NCT05978843 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Produce Prescription Benefit Dosage on Redemption

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2024 to 2024Enrolled242ConditionsFood InsecurityArmsMonetary benefit to purchase fruits and vegetables
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

7 authors.

Sarah A StotzUniversity of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Colorado School of Public Health, Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health, Aurora, CO, USA.
Nadine Budd NugentGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA.
Ronit RidbergUniversity of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Carmen Byker ShanksGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA.
Ka HerGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA.
Amy L YarochGretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA.
Hilary SeligmanDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA and Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Produce prescription projects are becoming increasingly common. This study explores perspectives and experiences of a sample of health care providers throughout the United States participating in implementing produce prescription projects with funding from the United States Department of Agriculture. Surveys (N = 34) were administered to collect demographic and descriptive data. Subsequently, individual key-informant interviews with participating health care providers (N = 16) were conducted via videoconference. Participants in this study included physicians and clinical staff (e.g., nursing, nutrition, social work) who work at health care organizations that facilitate a produce prescription project. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic qualitative analysis methods. Four cross-cutting key themes emerged. First, interviewees shared operational challenges, including lack of time/staff, difficulty with provider/patient engagement (some related to COVID-19), steep "trial and error" learning curve, and formidable barriers related to data sharing and research-related requirements (e.g., Institutional Review Board approvals). Second, interviewees elucidated their solutions, lessons learned, and emerging best practices as a response to challenges (e.g., importance of having a full-time paid staff member to manage PPR within clinic). Third, interviewees expressed satisfaction with produce prescription projects, particularly related to positive patient experiences (e.g., improved clinical outcomes and improved food security). Fourth, interviewees also shared appreciation for rigorous program evaluation to establish sustained funding and advance policies. However, they contextualized this appreciation within challenges outlined regarding collecting and sharing patient-related data outcomes. Findings provide emergent best practices and inform additional resources that are needed to sustainably implement and rigorously evaluate produce prescription projects.

Indexed as

Fruit and vegetable intakeHealth care provider perspectivesProduce prescriptionQualitative

Identifiers

PMID36161127
PMCPMC9502043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.