ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2025
RE-AIM evaluation of the first 5 years of a citywide produce prescription program.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the Food4Moms produce prescription program on readiness for healthy eating, fruit and vegetable intake, and food security.PloS one · 2026Article
- Advancing Food Is Medicine Research: An EPIS-Informed Qualitative Study of Stakeholder Views.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFood insecurity and poor diet quality increase risk for diet-related chronic disease and contribute to health disparities. Produce prescription programs (PPPs) are designed to promote chronic disease prevention and treatment by lowering barriers to fruit and vegetable (FV) purchases. In collaboration with a network of distribution partners, Vouchers 4 Veggies (V4V) provides eligible participants with vouchers ("prescriptions") to purchase fresh or frozen FV at participating vendors. PURPOSE: To evaluate the implementation and public health impact of the first 5 years of V4V implementation.
methodsUsing the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework, we analyzed quality improvement data collected from program participants, distribution partners, and vendors between 2015 and 2020. Participant outcomes included program engagement, FV intake, food security, and program satisfaction; other outcomes included ease of participation and implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-tests.
resultsBetween 2015 and 2020, V4V partnered with 135 distribution partners and 29 food vendors to serve 9720 unique participants across San Francisco, representing 10% of the population at high risk for food insecurity. Participants were racially and ethnically diverse. At baseline, 79% reported household food insecurity and 66% reported fair or poor health. At follow-up, food insecurity had decreased by 0.79 points (P = .001) on a six-point scale, and FV intake had increased by 0.77 servings/day (P = .001). Satisfaction was high among participants, distribution partners, and vendors.
conclusionsV4V demonstrates the potential for PPPs to improve food security and diet quality across diverse populations for primary and secondary prevention. Sustainable funding and infrastructure are critical for scaling.
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.