ArticlePreventing chronic disease2024
Evaluation of a Distribution Model to Increase Access to Affordable Fruits and Vegetables.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of a Novel Method to Evaluate Community-Based Interventions That Improve Access to Fruits and Vegetables.International journal of environmental research and 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Identifying effective, sustainable strategies to increase fruit and vegetable consumption is critical to addressing chronic disease risk. Models that provide incentives for produce purchases through reduced-cost or no-cost produce shares are promising. The purpose of our study was to examine the impact on fruit and vegetable intake of Good Food for All, a community-based program to distribute no-cost produce boxes to participants with low incomes. We also assessed program satisfaction and future interest in purchasing an affordable produce box. Methods: The Good Food for All program was implemented in 22 US cities. Surveys were administered at baseline and postintervention. An online research panel was used as a comparison group and weighted to be demographically comparable to the intervention group. Descriptive statistics and adjusted difference-in-difference (ADID) models were used to examine differences in outcomes between groups. Results: Respondents (intervention n = 632; comparison n = 1,153) were primarily White, non-Hispanic, and female. Intervention participants had a greater increase in total fruit consumption frequency (ADID: 0.43 times/d; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64; P < .001), total vegetable consumption frequency (ADID: 0.52 times/d; 95% CI, 0.12-0.91; P = .01), and total fruit and vegetable consumption frequency (ADID: 1.03 times/d; 95% CI, 0.49-1.56; P < .001) than comparison respondents. Most intervention participants reported boxes contained the right amount of food (71.9%) and high-quality produce (68.4%) and were willing to purchase a future produce box (85.0%). Conclusion: Findings indicate that a produce box distribution model increased fruit and vegetable consumption, had high satisfaction among participants, and generated interest in purchasing affordable produce boxes. Future studies should explore feasibility of offering low-cost produce boxes at grocery stores and determine appropriate pricing models to enhance access and sustainability.
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.