Source	Location/Setting, Study Period, Intervention	Study Design	Sample(s)	Measures of Participation Assessed
Abbott 2014, “Evaluation of the Food Bank of Delaware Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Program” [22]	Wilmington, DE; 2013 Intervention ~50% cost-offset CSA ($10/week full share; $5/week half share) 18 week season Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits accepted Weekly newsletter with recipes and cooking demonstrations at pick-up	Qualitative analysis: Focus groups with cost-offset CSA participants	Participant sample (n = 208) Eligibility criteria: Receive SNAP benefits Focus group sample (n = 10) Eligibility criteria: English-speaking Picked up the most shares	Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA Retention Interest in re-enrolling
Andreatta et al., 2008, “Lessons learned from advocating CSAs for low-income and food insecure households” [11]	Piedmont region of North Carolina; 2002–2003 Intervention 100% cost-offset (free) CSA Choice of share size from some farms 20–30 week season Weekly pick-up or delivery by volunteers Printed information and recipes	Observational: Summary statistics and qualitative analysis of pre- and post-season interviews with participants	Participant sample (n = 22) Eligibility criteria: Qualify for federal food assistance Live within five miles of the pick-up location Access to a ‘reasonably well-equipped’ kitchen	Enrollment Cooking attitudes Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA Whether cost-offset CSA met expectations
Brehm and Eisenhauer 2008, “Motivations for Participating in Community-Supported Agriculture and Their Relationship with Community Attachment and Social Capital” [37]	Central Illinois and New Hampshire, 2006 CSA Member survey Three CSAs in central Illinois Four CSAs in New Hampshire	Observational: Cross-sectional analysis of participant surveys, compared across household incomes	Participant sample (n = 225) Lower income, <$40,000 (26%) Higher income, >$40,000 (74%)	Enrollment Motivation for enrollment in CSA
Cotter et al., 2017, “Low-income adults’ perceptions of farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture programmes” [29]	Three affordable housing communities in Washington, DC; 2015–2016 Hypothetical CSA	Qualitative analysis: Focus groups	Multi-lingual focus groups (n = 28) Eligibility criteria: Resident of affordable housing community Speak English, Spanish or Amharic	Enrollment Familiarity with CSA Perceptions of hypothetical CSA
Galt et al., 2017, “What difference does income make for Community SupportedAgriculture (CSA) members in California: Comparinglower-income and higher-income households” [30]	CA statewide, 2014–2015 CSA member survey 41 CSAs Varied operational practices	Observational: Summary of cross-sectional survey data for low-income households (and compared to higher-income households)	CSA member sample (n = 1049) Eligibility criteria: CSA members at the time of the survey Low-income households (<$50,000/year, n = 129) Higher-income households (≥$50,0000/year, n = 920)	Enrollment Reasons for enrolling in CSA Factors influencing the decision to enroll Satisfaction Importance of CSA attributes
Garner et al., 2021, “Making community-supported agriculture accessible to low-income families: findings from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) process evaluation” [23]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 U.S. states (NY, NC, VT, and WA); 2016–2017 Intervention 50% cost-offset CSA (mean payment = $13/week) Choice of share size from some farms Weekly pick-up (mean = 21 weeks) Choice of pick-up location from some farms SNAP benefits accepted FV preparation classes Printed information and recipes Kitchen tools	Observational: Cross-sectional analysis of Applicant eligibility screening data Enrollment data Post-lesson surveys	Eligibility requirements: Adult caregiver of a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% United States federal poverty level (FPL) No CSA in at least 3 years Able to speak and read English Applicant sample (n = 548) Intervention sample (n = 115)	Enrollment Enrollment in cost-offset CSA Engagement Pick-up rate Used all or most of FVs in the share
Hanson et al., 2019, “Fruit and Vegetable Preferences and Practices may Hinder Participation in Community Supported Agriculture among Low-income Rural Families” [31]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 states (NY, NC, VT, and WA), 2015 Hypothetical CSA	Observational: Summary of recorded FV preferences Qualitative analysis: Interviews	Adult Sample (n = 41, ~10 from each state) Eligibility criteria: Primary caregiver to a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% FPL No CSA in the prior 3 years Able to speak English Child Sample (n = 20, ~5 from each state) Eligibility criteria: Child of adult interviewee Aged 8–12 years	Enrollment FV preferences Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about participating in a hypothetical CSA
Hanson et al., 2019, “Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviors Regarding Fruits and Vegetables among Cost-offset Community Supported Agriculture Applicants, Purchasers, and a Comparison Sample” [16]	VT statewide and comparison group from all New England states (MA, CT, RI, VT, NH, and ME); August 2017 Cost-offset CSA member survey 50% cost-offset CSAs statewide (VT) Varied operational practices	Observational: Cross-sectional comparison of online survey data from applicants and a non-applicant comparison group	Overall eligibility requirements: Caregiver of a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% FPL Able to speak and read English Applicant sample (n = 64) Applicant eligibility requirements: Resided in VT Applied to a cost-offset CSA program Comparison sample (n = 105) Comparison eligibility requirements: Female Resided in a New England state No CSA in at least 3 years	Enrollment Applied to a cost-offset CSA Enrolled/purchased a cost-offset CSA
Hanson et al., 2022, “Participation in Cost-offset Community Supported Agriculture by Low-income Households in the U.S. is Associated with Community Characteristics and Operational Practices” [24]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 U.S. states (NY, NC, VT, and WA); 2016–2017 Intervention 50% cost-offset CSA (mean payment = $13/week) Choice of share size from some farms Weekly pick-up (mean = 21 weeks) Choice of pick-up locations from some farms SNAP benefits accepted FV preparation classes Printed information and recipes Kitchen tools	Observational: Examined differences in shares picked up (recorded in pick-up logs) by community and participant characteristics and CSA operational practices	Participant sample (n = 137) Eligibility requirements: Adult caregiver of a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% FPL No CSA in at least 3 years Able to speak and read English 8+ participants in community	Engagement % of weeks shares were picked up
Hinrichs and Kremer 2002, “Social inclusion in a Midwest local food system project” [38]	Midwest, 1997–1998 Intervention 100% or ‘partial’ cost-offset CSA FV preparation classes	Observational: Summary of post-intervention telephone surveys Comparison of cost-offset CSA participants with full-price members	CSA participant sample (n = 41) Cost-offset CSA (n = 13) Full-price CSA (n = 28)	Enrollment Enrollment Reasons for enrolling Satisfaction Perceptions of belonging to CSA
Hoffman et al., 2012, “Farm to Family: Increasing Access to Affordable Fruits and Vegetables Among Urban Head Start Families” [17]	Four Head Start centers in Boston, MA; 2010–2011 Hypothetical CSA + Intervention 67% cost-offset CSA (mean payment = $5/week) Weekly pick-up at Head Start SNAP benefits accepted Bilingual FV education	Observational: Cross-sectional summary statistics from bilingual (English and Spanish) pre-intervention surveys Cross-sectional analysis of post-intervention participant surveys	Overall eligibility criteria: Caregiver of a child enrolled in Head Start Able to speak and read English or Spanish Pre-intervention Survey Sample (n = 139) Participant Sample (n = 14) Participant eligibility criteria: Enrolled in cost-offset CSA	Enrollment Interest in a hypothetical CSA Engagement Share pick-up rates Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA Reasons for drop-outRetention Interest in re-enrolling
Izumi et al., 2018, “Feasibility of Using a Community-Supported Agriculture Program to Increase Access to and Intake of Vegetables among Federally Qualified Health Center Patients” [25]	Federally qualified health center (FQHC), Portland, OR; 2015 Intervention 75% cost-offset CSA (mean payment = $5/week) Weekly pick-up at the clinic (23 weeks) SNAP benefits accepted Self-selected FVs FV education and recipes Reminders	Observational: Cross-sectional summary of pre- and post-intervention survey data Qualitative analysis: Post-intervention focus groups	Participant survey sample (n = 9) Eligibility criteria FQHC clinic patient Able to speak and read English or Spanish No previous participation in CSA Participant focus group sample (n = 15)	Enrollment Pre-intervention self-efficacy Satisfaction Post-intervention satisfaction
Izumi et al., 2020, “CSA Partnerships for Health: outcome evaluation results from a subsidized community-supported agriculture program to connect safety-net clinic patients with farms to improve dietary behaviors, food security, and overall health” [26]	Federally qualified health center (FQHC), Portland, OR; 2017 Intervention 78% cost-offset CSA (mean payment = $22/month) Weekly pick-up at the clinic (23 weeks) SNAP benefits accepted Self-selected FVs FV education and recipes Reminders	Observational: Summary of pre- and post-intervention telephone and paper surveys	Participant sample (n = 48) Eligibility criteria FQHC clinic patient Able to speak and read English or Spanish	Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA Retention Interest in re-enrolling
Martin. et al., 2019, “Low-income mothers and the alternative food movement: An intersectional approach” [32]	3 North Carolina counties (1 urban and 2 rural); 2014–2015 Hypothetical CSA	Qualitative analysis: Semi-structured interviews about a hypothetical CSA	Low-income sample (n = 83) Eligibility criteria: Mothers/grandmothers of young children Low income (not defined) English speaking No previous participation in CSA	Enrollment Familiarity with CSA Perceptions of hypothetical CSA
McGuirt et al., 2018, “A Modified Choice Experiment to Examine Willingness to Participate in a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Program among Low-income Parents” [34]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 U.S. states (NY, NC, VT, and WA); 2015 Hypothetical CSA	Observational: Summary of a modified choice experiment about a hypothetical CSA (travel distance, share size, share frequency, and price) conducted during interviews Qualitative analysis of interview comments	Sample (n = 42, ~10 from each state) Eligibility criteria: Primary caregiver to a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% FPL No CSA in prior 3 years Able to speak and read English	Enrollment Attitudes toward hypothetical CSA
McGuirt et al., 2019, “A mixed-methods examination of the geospatial and sociodemographic context of a direct-to-consumer food system innovation” [33]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 U.S. states (NY, NC, VT, and WA); 2016–2017 Intervention 50% cost-offset CSA (mean payment =$13/week) Choice of share sizes from some farms Weekly pick-up (mean = 21 weeks) Choice of pick-up locations from some farms SNAP benefits accepted FV preparation classes Printed information and recipes Kitchen tools	Observational: Geospatial analysis of participants’ homes, CSA farms, and pick-up locations Qualitative analysis: Focus groups with participants	Geospatial data Participants’ homes (n = 92) CSA farms (n = 12) Pick-up locations (n = 16) Participant sample (n = 53) Eligibility criteria: Primary caregiver to child 2–12y Household income ≤ 185% FPL No CSA in prior 3 years Able to speak and read English	Satisfaction Satisfaction with pick-up location Socio-demographic context of pick-up location
Quandt et al., 2013, “Feasibility of using a Community-Supported Agriculture Program to improve fruit and vegetable inventories and consumption in an underresourced urban community” [35]	Forsyth County, NC; 2012 Intervention 100% cost-offset CSA (free) Weekly pick-up FV preparation classes and recipes	Observational: Descriptive analysis of post-intervention telephone interviews	Participant sample (n = 25) Eligibility criteria: Clients of a community action agency Female Head of household with 1+ children Able to speak English	Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA Retention Interest in re-enrolling Willingness-to-pay for future cost-offset CSA
White et al., 2018, “The perceived influence of cost-offset community-supported agriculture on food access among low-income families” [36]	Rural and micropolitan communities in 4 U.S. states (NY, NC, VT, and WA); 2016–2017 Intervention 50% cost-offset CSA (mean payment =$13/week) Choice of share sizes from some farms Weekly pick-up (mean = 21 weeks) Choice of pick-up locations from some farms SNAP benefits accepted FV preparation classes Printed information and recipes Kitchen tools	Qualitative analysis: Post-intervention focus groups	Participant sample (n = 53) Eligibility criteria: Primary caregiver to a child aged 2–12 years Household income ≤ 185% FPL No CSA in the prior 3 years Able to speak and read English	Satisfaction Satisfaction with cost-offset CSA