ArticlePloS one2026
Impact of a modified produce prescription program on fruit and vegetable intake in an HBCU.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited access to fruits and vegetables remains a significant barrier among underserved populations, particularly within Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Evidence from previous studies suggests that prescription programs, which provide incentives for fresh produce consumption, are effective in enhancing dietary quality and alleviating food insecurity.
objectiveThis pilot investigation assessed the impact of a tailored produce prescription intervention on changes in fruit and vegetable consumption among students at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU).
methodsFifty-five students were assigned to an intervention (n = 28) or control group (n = 27); both received nutrition education and cooking demonstrations, while the intervention group additionally received biweekly personalized produce bags. Fruit and vegetable intake was assessed using a 10-item dietary screener, supported by 24-hour recalls and food frequency questionnaires. Changes in intake were evaluated using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsCompared with the control group, the intervention group reported higher intake frequencies of cooked beans (χ2 = 17.63, p = 0.014), while the intake of non-deep-fried vegetables approached statistical significance (χ2 = 16.82, p = 0.052). Notably, only the intervention group experienced increases from baseline to endline in the intake of 100% fruit juice (Z = -2.199, p = 0.028), fruits (Z = -2.199, p = 0.028), green leafy vegetables (Z = -2.195, p = 0.028), cooked beans (Z = -2.776, p = 0.005), other non-deep-fried vegetables (Z = -2.292, p = 0.022), and tomato sauce (Z = -2.026, p = 0.043).
conclusionThe results of a modified produce prescription program revealed favorable within-group changes in the frequency of consumption of several fruit- and vegetable-related foods. While most between-group differences at endline were not statistically significant, observed patterns suggest potential promise and support the need for larger, adequately powered studies to evaluate the impact more rigorously.
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.