ReviewHealth affairs (Project Hope)2025
Understanding And Comparing Economic Assistance Models To Improve Food Security And Diet Quality: A Rapid Review.
Review in Health affairs (Project Hope), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Sectional Evaluation of WIC Participation Status and Massachusetts Children's Nutrition after the Cash-Value Benefit Increase.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2026Article
- Changes in Food Security and Diet Quality After the 2021 SNAP Benefit Increase in Massachusetts, USA.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Household barriers and facilitators to healthy eating in a U.S. census-representative sample of the general population and a low-income sample: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Food insecurity and poor nutrition afflict millions of Americans with low incomes. Three policy approaches to address these challenges are widely debated: modifying existing cash-like food assistance programs (that is, increasing benefits with or without imposing nutrition restrictions) or introducing new cash-like food assistance; incentivizing fruit and vegetable purchases; and providing unconditional cash transfers. This rapid review synthesized experimental and quasi-experimental evidence of how these approaches affect food security, diet quality, and dietary intake. Included studies evaluated modifications to cash-like food assistance benefits, nutrition incentives, and cash transfers. Increasing benefits without imposing nutrition restrictions for cash-like food assistance programs has the strongest evidence for improving food security and has mixed evidence for dietary outcomes. Adding nutrition restrictions to such benefits inconsistently improves diet quality and may reduce program participation. Nutrition incentives prompt small increases in fruit and vegetable intake but inconsistent reductions in food insecurity. More research is needed on cash transfers. As the evidence base for the optimal design of economic assistance programs evolves, continued investment in existing food assistance and nutrition incentive programs with strong evidence for effectiveness is essential.
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.