ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2025
Understanding the user experience of a mobile produce market intervention toolkit.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveVeggie Van (VV) is an evidenced-based intervention for improving diet through a mobile market (MM) and is disseminated through an online toolkit. Understanding the user experience of the VV toolkit is crucial to inform its refinement and ensure future implementation success and positive public health impact.
designWe conducted semi-structured interviews to understand the VV toolkit user experience including their familiarity and utilization of the toolkit, experience navigating, feedback on specific content, comprehension of the evidence base, and feedback on training and technical assistance options. Interviews were deductively analyzed using Atlas.ti 22.0 qualitative software.
settingInterviews were conducted via web conference over the spring and summer of 2022.
participantsInterviews were conducted with 16 key informants (KIs) from established MM organizations and frequent toolkit users.
resultsThe majority of KIs were previously familiar with the VV toolkit and had used it in their work or referred others to the toolkit. The toolkit was perceived to be thorough and well-done, but more appropriate for an organization earlier in the process of starting an MM, despite the toolkit being intended for organizations of all experience levels. KIs cited that the toolkit facilitated planning for markets and bolstered their legitimacy in conversations with stakeholders. Most could not accurately define the core components of the VV model and how it differed from other models; it was also unclear to what degree practitioners are implementing its practices.
conclusionsThis evaluation provided valuable feedback on the perceptions and utility of our online toolkit as well as comprehension of the evidence base. Clarifying the VV model components and enhancing the appeal of the toolkit to more established practitioners will ensure proper knowledge translation and increase the reach of the intervention.
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.