Advertisement

Produce Prescriptions and Nutrition Education Improve Experiences and Perceptions of Farm Direct Settings in Adults With Low Income

  • Author Footnotes
    † Dr Slagel was affiliated with the Department of Foods and Nutrition, University of Georgia, at the time this study was completed.
    Nicholas Slagel
    Correspondence
    Address for correspondence: Nicholas Slagel, PhD, RDN, Department of Kinesiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Northern Colorado, 1828 10th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631
    Footnotes
    † Dr Slagel was affiliated with the Department of Foods and Nutrition, University of Georgia, at the time this study was completed.
    Affiliations
    Department of Kinesiology, Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jennifer Jo Thompson
    Affiliations
    Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jung Sun Lee
    Affiliations
    Department of Foods and Nutrition, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    † Dr Slagel was affiliated with the Department of Foods and Nutrition, University of Georgia, at the time this study was completed.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To examine Fruit and Vegetable Prescription (FVRx) Program participants’ and nonparticipants’ experiences and perceptions of farm direct (FD) settings.

      Design

      Multiple-case study of adults with low income from 3 study groups: (1) FVRx intervention (produce prescription, nutrition education [NE], financial literacy education, health screening), (2) NE only, and (3) control (standard health care). Participant interviews with each group at baseline and 6 months.

      Setting

      Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) eligible adults from 3 Georgia counties.

      Participants

      A total of 46 adults with ≥ 1 diet-related condition.

      Phenomena of Interest

      Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Program participant and nonparticipant experiences and perceptions of FD settings.

      Analysis

      Constant comparative methods and thematic analysis of qualitative interview data across groups.

      Findings

      Two main themes emerged: (1) baseline FD setting experiences and perceptions and (2) divergent experiences and perceptions with FD settings postintervention. Participants across each group employed price-conscious food purchasing practices because of limited food budgets, limiting local food access. Combining produce prescription, NE, and farmers’ market access enhanced FVRx participant associations with FD settings to reinforce motivation for accessing and purchasing fruits and vegetables beyond program participation.

      Conclusions and Implications

      Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Programs reduce multiple barriers to participating in FD settings compared with NE or standard health care alone.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access

      SNEB Member Login

      SNEB Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Login via the SNEB Website to access all journal content and features.

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Raghupathi W
        • Raghupathi V.
        An empirical study of chronic diseases in the United States: A visual analytics approach.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15: 431
        • Bellavia A
        • Larsson SC
        • Bottai M
        • Wolk A
        • Orsini N.
        Fruit and vegetable consumption and all-cause mortality: a dose-response analysis.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 98: 454-459
        • Parks CA
        • Mitchell E
        • Byker Shanks C
        • Nugent NB
        • Fricke HE
        • Yaroch AL
        Descriptive characteristics of nutrition incentive projects across the U.S.: a comparison between farm direct and brick and mortar settings.
        Inquiry. 2021; 58469580211064131
        • Jilcott Pitts SB
        • Wu Q
        • McGuirt JT
        • Crawford TW
        • Keyserling TC
        • Ammerman AS
        Associations between access to farmers’‘ markets and supermarkets, shopping patterns, fruit and vegetable consumption and health indicators among women of reproductive age in eastern North Carolina, U.S.A.
        Public Health Nutr. 2013; 16: 1944-1952
        • Seligman HK
        • Laraia BA
        • Kushel MB.
        Food insecurity is associated with chronic disease among low-income NHANES participants.
        J Nutr. 2010; 140 (Erratum in: J Nutr. 2011;141:542): 304-310
        • French SA
        • Tangney CC
        • Crane MM
        • Wang Y
        • Appelhans BM.
        Nutrition quality of food purchases varies by household income: the SHoPPER study.
        BMC Public Health. 2019; 19: 231
        • Cotter EW
        • Teixeira C
        • Bontrager A
        • Horton K
        • Soriano D.
        Low-income adults’ perceptions of farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture programmes.
        Public Health Nutr. 2017; 20: 1452-1460
        • Webber CB
        • Dollahite JS.
        Attitudes and behaviors of low-income food heads of households toward sustainable food systems concepts.
        J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2008; 3: 186-205
        • Hu X
        • Clarke LW
        • Zendehdel K
        Farmers' market usage, fruit and vegetable consumption, meals at home and health-evidence from Washington, DC.
        Sustainability. 2021; 13: 7437
        • Freedman DA
        • Lee E
        • Ohri-Vachaspati P
        • et al.
        Predictors of farmers’ market shopping among people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
        Am J Community Psychol. 2018; 61: 488-499
        • Young C
        • Karpyn A
        • Uy N
        • Wich K
        • Glyn J
        Farmers‘ markets in low income communities: impact of community environment, food programs and public policy.
        Community Dev. 2011; 42: 208-220
        • Savoie-Roskos M
        • Durward C
        • Jeweks M
        • LeBlanc H
        Reducing food insecurity and improving fruit and vegetable intake among farmers’ market incentive program participants.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016; 48 (e1): 70-76
        • Parks CA
        • Stern KL
        • Fricke HE
        • Clausen W
        • Yaroch AL.
        Healthy food incentive programs: findings from food insecurity nutrition incentive programs across the United States.
        Health Promot Pract. 2020; 21: 421-429
        • Vericker T
        • Dixit-Joshi S
        • Taylor J
        • May L
        • Baier K
        • Williams ES.
        Impact of food insecurity nutrition incentives on household fruit and vegetable expenditures.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2021; 53: 418-427
        • McLeroy KR
        • Bibeau D
        • Steckler A
        • Glanz K.
        An ecological perspective on health promotion programs.
        Health Educ Q. 1988; 15: 351-377
        • Golden SD
        • Earp JAL.
        Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions.
        Health Educ Behav. 2012; 39: 364-372
        • Parks CA
        • Stern KL
        • Fricke HE
        • Clausen W
        • Fox TA
        • Yaroch AL.
        Food insecurity nutrition incentive grant program: implications for the 2018 farm bill and future directions.
        J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019; 119: 395-399
        • Engel K
        • Ruder EH.
        Fruit and vegetable incentive programs for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants: a scoping review of program structure.
        Nutrients. 2020; 12: 1676
        • Slagel N
        • Newman T
        • Sanville L
        • et al.
        A pilot fruit and vegetable prescription (FVRx) program improves local fruit and vegetable consumption, nutrition knowledge, and food purchasing practices.
        Health Promot Pract. 2021; 15248399211018169
        • Newman T
        • Lee JS.
        Strategies and challenges: qualitative lessons learned from Georgia produce prescription programs.
        Health Promot Pract. 2022; 23: 699-707
        • Schlosser AV
        • Smith S
        • Joshi K
        • Thornton A
        • Trapl ES
        • Bolen S.
        You guys really care about me…”: A qualitative exploration of a produce prescription program in safety-net clinics.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2019; 34: 2567-2574
        • Cahill E
        • Schmidt SR
        • Henry TL
        • et al.
        Qualitative research study on addressing barriers to healthy diet among low-income individuals at an urban, safety-net hospital.
        BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2020; 3: 383-386
        • Slagel N
        • Newman T
        • Sanville L
        • et al.
        Effects of a fruit and vegetable prescription program with expanded education for low-income adults.
        Health Educ Behav. 2022; 10901981221091926
        • Guba EG
        • Lincoln YS.
        Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
        Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1994; 2: 105
        • Baxter P
        • Jack S.
        Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers.
        Qual Rep. 2008; 13: 544-559
        • Yin R.
        Case Study Research Design and Methods.
        3rd Edition. SAGE Publications, 2003
        • Tracy SJ.
        Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
        Qual Inq. 2010; 16: 837-851
        • Lambert SD
        • Loiselle CG.
        Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness.
        J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62: 228-237
        • Becker MH.
        The Health Belief Model and Personal Health Behavior.
        Health Educ Monogr. 1974; 2: 324-473
        • Sacks FM
        • Obarzanek E
        • Windhauser MM
        • et al.
        Rationale and design of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension trial (DASH). A multicenter controlled-feeding study of dietary patterns to lower blood pressure.
        Ann Epidemiol. 1995; 5: 108-118
        • Bandura A
        Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
        Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52: 1-26
        • Stotz S
        • Sanville L
        • Cotwright C
        • Reed R
        • Habibi M
        • Lee JS.
        Development of a healthful weight management nutrition education curriculum for low-income adults.
        J Ext. 2019; 57: n5
      1. County health rankings and roadmaps: health outcomes - Clarke County, GA. Population Health Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/georgia/2019/rankings/clarke/county/outcomes/overall/snapshot. Accessed January 25, 2022.

      2. Gundersen C, Dewey A, Crumbaugh M, Englehard K, Engelhard E. Map the Meal Gap: A Report on County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and County Food Cost in the United States in 2016. Feeding America; 2019. https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/research/map-the-meal-gap/2016/2016-map-the-meal-gap-full.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2022.

      3. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food environment atlas. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-environment-atlas/. Accessed January 25, 2022.

        • Charmaz K.
        Constructing Grounded Theory (Introducing Qualitative Methods).
        2nd Edition. SAGE Publications, 2014
        • O'Connor MK
        • Netting FE
        • Thomas ML.
        Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing Institutional Review Board oversight.
        Qual Inq. 2008; 14: 28-45
        • Fram SM.
        The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory.
        Qual Rep. 2013; 18: 1
        • Neff RA
        • Merrigan K
        • Wallinga D.
        A food systems approach to healthy food and agriculture policy.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34: 1908-1915
        • Freedman DA
        • Mattison-Faye A
        • Alia K
        • Guest MA
        • Hébert JR
        Comparing farmers’ market revenue trends before and after the implementation of a monetary incentive for recipients of food assistance.
        Prev Chronic Dis. 2014; 11: E87
        • Ahern M
        • Brown C
        • Dukas S.
        A national study of the association between food environments and county-level health outcomes.
        J Rural Health. 2011; 27: 367-379
        • Newman T
        • Lee JS
        • Thompson JJ
        • Rajbhandari-Thapa J.
        Current landscape of produce prescription programs in the US.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2022; 54: 575-581
        • Mozaffarian D
        • Liu J
        • Sy S
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives and disincentives for improving food purchases and health through the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): a microsimulation study.
        PLoS Med. 2018; 15e1002661
        • Appleton KM
        • Hemingway A
        • Rajska J
        • Hartwell H.
        Repeated exposure and conditioning strategies for increasing vegetable liking and intake: systematic review and meta-analyses of the published literature.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2018; 108: 842-856
        • Seguin-Fowler RA
        • Hanson KL
        • Jilcott Pitts SB
        • et al.
        Community supported agriculture plus nutrition education improves skills, self-efficacy, and eating behaviors among low-income caregivers but not their children: A randomized controlled trial.
        Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021; 18: 112
        • Dannefer R
        • Abrami A
        • Rapoport R
        • Sriphanlop P
        • Sacks R
        • Johns M.
        A mixed-methods evaluation of a SNAP-ed farmers’ market–based nutrition education program.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015; 47 (e1): 516-525
      4. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. FY 2019 SNAP-Ed Plan Guidance. US Department of Agriculture; 2018. https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/snap/Guidance/FY2019SNAPEdPlanGuidanceFULL.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2022.

        • Kolb DA
        • Experiential Learning
        Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
        2nd ed. Pearson FT Press, 2014
        • Ryan-Ibarra S
        • DeLisio A
        • Bang H
        • et al.
        The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Education improves nutrition-related behaviors.
        J Nutr Sci. 2020; 9: e44
        • Gaddis J
        • Coplen A
        • Clark-Barol M
        • Martin A
        • Barrett C
        • Lubowicki L.
        Incorporatinglocal foods into low-income families’ home-cooking practices.
        J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2020; 10: 117-132
      5. Martinez S, Hand M, Pra MD, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2010.https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46393/7054_err97_1_.pdf?v=0. Accessed January 25, 2022.

        • Stotz SA
        • Thompson JJ
        • Bhargava V
        • Scarrow A
        • Capitano K
        • Lee JS.
        A supplemental produce and elearning nutrition education program for Georgians who use safety-net clinics for their health care.
        J Nutr Educ Behav. 2019; 51: 1099-1106