Trial reportFrontiers in public health2025
Nutritional quality of foods according to the Nova food classification system after a behavioral economics intervention in food pantries.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with poor health outcomes. Using the Nova food classification system to measure the level of food processing, this study assessed whether foods selected by food pantry clients were more favorable following a behavioral economics food pantry intervention. Methods: The study analyzed secondary data from a group-randomized evaluation in 11 Minnesota food pantries. Food items selected by 187 clients (85 intervention, 102 control) were categorized according to Nova in one of four categories: (1) unprocessed/minimally processed, (2) culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, or (4) ultra-processed foods. In each client cart, the energy share (% of total calories) of each Nova food category was calculated. Adjusted mixed linear models were used to test the post-intervention differences in the energy share of Nova food categories between intervention conditions. Results: On average, unprocessed/minimally processed foods represented 34.6% of the energy share among carts in the intervention group and 33.8% among client carts in the control group. Ultra-processed foods represented 43.5 and 41.1% of the foods in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the adjusted models, no statistically significant differences in the energy share of Nova categories were found between foods selected by clients in the pantries in the two conditions. Discussion: Neither a reduction in client selection of ultra-processed foods nor an increase in unprocessed/minimally processed foods were among the benefits of the intervention. Future research should explore interventions targeting Nova food categories and subgroups to improve the nutritional quality of foods in food pantries.
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.