Table 1.
Non-clinic-based food pharmacy programs.
| First Author, Year |
Population |
Sample Size |
Design |
Total Voucher Value |
Voucher Value/Person/Day |
Voucher Redemption Site |
Intervention Components |
Duration |
# EC |
Outcome(s) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FM | GS | MM | NC | NEM | NES | CEM | CES | GS | |||||||||
| Kral, 2016 | Adults living in Philadelphia between 40 and 70 years of age and qualified as either a frequent coupon user or a non-coupon user. | N = 54 | Randomized controlled trial. Analysis compared pre- and post- intervention values. | $100 max∗ not a voucher system | Variable, depending on purchasing habits | X | X | 3 mo | 1 | The incentive group’s daily vegetable intake increased over time, while the control groups did not. Both groups improved obesogenic household food availability scores over time. | |||||||
| Sharma, 2016 | Low-income parent-child dyads with children enrolled in elementary schools with ≥75% of students receiving free or reduced-price school lunch. | N = 717 dyads | Quasi-experimental non-randomized controlled school-based study in Houston, TX. Data analyzed at baseline, week 8, and study completion (week 16). | $0, free 50–60 servings of fresh produce per week | N/A | X | X | X | X | 16 wk | 16 | Children in the intervention group had increased intake of fruits, vegetables, and fiber, and decreased intake of added sugar. Parental understanding of nutrition facts labels and using labels to make food purchasing decisions increased in the intervention compared to control group. | |||||
| Byker, 2014 | Head Start preschoolers and their families | N = 51 families | Pre-test/post-test design; pre-test administered 4 weeks prior to intervention. Post-test administered 4 weeks post- intervention. | $0, free 21 cup equiva-lents of fresh produce weekly | N/A | X | X | 8 wk | 0 | Increases in fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, vegetable servings, and combined fruit and vegetable servings over time. On average, participants increased their number of cups of fruits and vegetables per day by 1.4. | |||||||
| Zepeda, 2014 | Across 4 sites, racially, ethnic-ally, socioeconomically diverse adults in urban and rural areas | N = 82 across all sites | Convenience sample focus group study design at four sites consisting of both shoppers and non-shoppers of local mobile produce vendors | N/A | N/A | X | N/A | 0 | Mobile produce market customers, on average, consumed 1.5 more servings of fruits and vegetables per day compared to non-mobile produce market customers. None of the participants met the CDC’s recommendation of 9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. | ||||||||
| Gorham, 2015 | Low-income parents of children aged 3–13 years recruited at one of 6 mobile produce markets in Rhode Island. | N = 378 parents with children aged 3–13 years | Non-randomized cohort study. Analysis comparing pre- and post- values. | N/A; produce at markets priced 15–25% lower than retail prices. | N/A | X | 5 mo | N/A | Children’s average fruit, vegetable, and combined fruit and vegetable intake increased by ¼ cup, 1/3 cup, and nearly ½ cup, respectively, from pre- to post-program. | ||||||||
Key: FM: Farmers’ Market; GS: Grocery Store; MM: Mobile Market; NC: Nutrition Counseling; NEM: Nutrition Education Materials; NES: Nutrition Education Sessions; CEM: Culinary Education Materials; CES: Culinary Education Sessions; GS: Goal Setting; Number of Educational Contacts: # EC.