Trial reportJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics2024
Effects of Inclusion of Food Purchase Restrictions and Incentives in a Food Benefit Program on Diet Quality and Food Purchasing: Results From a Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- State-Level Differences in Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption by Income Among Children Aged 1-5 Years, United States, 2021-2023.Childhood obesity (Print) · 2026Article
- Call to Action: Antihunger and Public Health Communities Must Find Common Ground to Advance a More Just and Nutritious Food System in the United States.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness and Health Equity Improvements From Excluding Sugar-Sweetened Beverages From the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Understanding And Comparing Economic Assistance Models To Improve Food Security And Diet Quality: A Rapid Review.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2025Review
- An environmental scan of financial incentives to increase access to healthy foods: How, how much, and how often?BMC public health · 2025Article
- Safeguarding SNAP as an Effective Antihunger Program: Myths and Potential Harms of Adding Diet Quality as a Core Objective.American journal of public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is interest in reshaping the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to better support family nutrition.
objectiveThe Grocery Assistance Program Study (GAPS) for Families evaluated the effects of prohibiting using program funds for the purchase of certain sugary foods on the nutritional quality of foods purchased and consumed by program participants.
designA randomized experimental trial was carried out with participants randomized to one of three food benefit conditions. Baseline and follow-up measures collected included interviewer-administered 24-hour dietary recalls, food purchase receipts, food security, height, and weight. PARTICIPANT/
settingAdult-child dyads in households eligible for SNAP but currently not enrolled were recruited from the Minneapolis/St Paul MN metropolitan area from May of 2018 through May of 2019. A total of 293 adult-child dyads received the intervention as allocated. Of these dyads, 233 adults completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 20.5%. A total of 224 children completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 23.5%.
interventionParticipants were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: restriction (not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages [SSB], sweet baked goods, or candy with program funds); restriction paired with incentive (30% incentive for fruits and vegetables [FV] purchased with funds); and control (funds provided with no restrictions or incentives). Funds were provided on a 4-week cycle for 20 weeks via a study-provided debit card.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 total score. Additional outcomes included selected HEI-2015 component scores; energy intake; food security; body weight; and purchasing of SSB, sweet baked goods, candies, fruits, and vegetables. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Linear regression analyses were conducted with change in the outcome regressed on treatment condition for the primary outcome analyses.
resultsNo differences were observed between conditions in change in the nutrition and food security measures examined. Purchases of SSB and sweet baked goods and candies significantly differed by experimental condition. Purchase of restricted foods was lower at follow-up in the restriction and restriction paired with incentive conditions compared with the control condition. For example, spending on SSB at follow-up was significantly lower in the restriction ($2.66/week) and restriction paired with incentive ($2.06/week) conditions in comparison with control condition ($4.44/week) (P < 0.0003 and P < 0.0001, respectively).
conclusionsThis study failed to find evidence in support of prohibiting the purchase of sugary foods with food program funds as a strategy to improve program participant nutrition, even when paired with an FV incentive. Research carried out in the context of the SNAP program is needed for a more robust evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.