Cargando…

Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings

The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parks, Courtney A., Mitchell, Elise, Byker Shanks, Carmen, Nugent, Nadine B., Fricke, Hollyanne E., Yaroch, Amy L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8725024/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00469580211064131
_version_ 1784626030846148608
author Parks, Courtney A.
Mitchell, Elise
Byker Shanks, Carmen
Nugent, Nadine B.
Fricke, Hollyanne E.
Yaroch, Amy L.
author_facet Parks, Courtney A.
Mitchell, Elise
Byker Shanks, Carmen
Nugent, Nadine B.
Fricke, Hollyanne E.
Yaroch, Amy L.
author_sort Parks, Courtney A.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared across brick and mortar (B&M) and farm direct (FD) sites in the United States. Across 10 nutrition incentive (NI) grantees, there were 621 sites that reported data from B&M (n = 156) and FD (n = 465) locations. Among B&M sites, the common food retail types included: large chain traditional supermarket (n = 49) and independent traditional supermarket (n = 46). Among FD sites, the most frequently reported food retail types were farmers markets (n = 371). For B&M sites, the most common financial instruments were loyalty cards (n = 67, 43.5%), followed by an automatic discount at the register (n = 41, 26.6%), and coupons (n = 29, 18.8%). FD sites frequently reported physical financial instruments including tokens (n = 272, 61.1%), followed by paper vouchers (n = 131, 29.4%). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases that were eligible to trigger incentives included mainly “all fresh FVs” at B&M sites (n = 98, 48.5%) and “all SNAP eligible items” at FD sites (n = 417, 85.8%). FVs eligible for incentive redemption included mainly “all fresh FVs” for both B&M sites (n = 110, 65.5%) and FD sites (n = 370, 67.6%). In terms of incentive-to-SNAP level ratio, both B&M sites and FD sites reported that they commonly utilized a 1:1 incentive-to-SNAP level ratio (n = 106, 68.8% and n = 261, 94.9% respectively). This paper will provide foundational understanding of the heterogeneity of GusNIP NI projects—specifically between B&M and FD settings—in order to inform future national work and ultimately demonstrate the impact of NI projects on food security status and dietary quality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8725024
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87250242022-01-05 Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings Parks, Courtney A. Mitchell, Elise Byker Shanks, Carmen Nugent, Nadine B. Fricke, Hollyanne E. Yaroch, Amy L. Inquiry Original Research Article The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared across brick and mortar (B&M) and farm direct (FD) sites in the United States. Across 10 nutrition incentive (NI) grantees, there were 621 sites that reported data from B&M (n = 156) and FD (n = 465) locations. Among B&M sites, the common food retail types included: large chain traditional supermarket (n = 49) and independent traditional supermarket (n = 46). Among FD sites, the most frequently reported food retail types were farmers markets (n = 371). For B&M sites, the most common financial instruments were loyalty cards (n = 67, 43.5%), followed by an automatic discount at the register (n = 41, 26.6%), and coupons (n = 29, 18.8%). FD sites frequently reported physical financial instruments including tokens (n = 272, 61.1%), followed by paper vouchers (n = 131, 29.4%). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases that were eligible to trigger incentives included mainly “all fresh FVs” at B&M sites (n = 98, 48.5%) and “all SNAP eligible items” at FD sites (n = 417, 85.8%). FVs eligible for incentive redemption included mainly “all fresh FVs” for both B&M sites (n = 110, 65.5%) and FD sites (n = 370, 67.6%). In terms of incentive-to-SNAP level ratio, both B&M sites and FD sites reported that they commonly utilized a 1:1 incentive-to-SNAP level ratio (n = 106, 68.8% and n = 261, 94.9% respectively). This paper will provide foundational understanding of the heterogeneity of GusNIP NI projects—specifically between B&M and FD settings—in order to inform future national work and ultimately demonstrate the impact of NI projects on food security status and dietary quality. SAGE Publications 2021-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8725024/ /pubmed/34928711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00469580211064131 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Parks, Courtney A.
Mitchell, Elise
Byker Shanks, Carmen
Nugent, Nadine B.
Fricke, Hollyanne E.
Yaroch, Amy L.
Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title_full Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title_fullStr Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title_full_unstemmed Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title_short Descriptive Characteristics of Nutrition Incentive Projects Across the U.S.: A Comparison Between Farm Direct and Brick and Mortar Settings
title_sort descriptive characteristics of nutrition incentive projects across the u.s.: a comparison between farm direct and brick and mortar settings
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8725024/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34928711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00469580211064131
work_keys_str_mv AT parkscourtneya descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings
AT mitchellelise descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings
AT bykershankscarmen descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings
AT nugentnadineb descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings
AT frickehollyannee descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings
AT yarochamyl descriptivecharacteristicsofnutritionincentiveprojectsacrosstheusacomparisonbetweenfarmdirectandbrickandmortarsettings