• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

纽约市健康券计划对 2006-2009 年农贸市场电子福利转账支出的影响。

The impact of New York City's Health Bucks Program on electronic benefit transfer spending at farmers markets, 2006-2009.

机构信息

Food Access and Community Health Programs, Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Tobacco Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 42-09 28th St, Queens, NY 11101, USA.

出版信息

Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Sep 26;10:E163. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.130113.

DOI:10.5888/pcd10.130113
PMID:24070035
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3786628/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Increasing the accessibility and affordability of fresh produce is an important strategy for municipalities combatting obesity and related health conditions. Farmers markets offer a promising venue for intervention in urban settings, and in recent years, an increasing number of programs have provided financial incentives to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. However, few studies have explored the impact of these programs on use of SNAP benefits at farmers markets.

METHODS

New York City's Health Bucks Program provides SNAP recipients with a $2 coupon for every $5 spent using SNAP benefits at participating farmers markets. We analyzed approximately 4 years of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) sales data, from July 2006 through November 2009, to develop a preliminary assessment of the effect of the Health Bucks Program on EBT spending at participating markets.

RESULTS

Farmers markets that offered Health Bucks coupons to SNAP recipients averaged higher daily EBT sales than markets without the incentive ($383.07, 95% confidence interval [CI], 333.1-433.1, vs $273.97, 95% CI, 243.4-304.5, P < 0.001) following the introduction of a direct point-of-purchase incentive. Multivariate analysis indicated this difference remained after adjusting for the year the market was held and the neighborhood poverty level.

CONCLUSION

When a $2 financial incentive was distributed with EBT, use of SNAP benefits increased at participating New York City farmers markets. We encourage other urban jurisdictions to consider adapting the Health Bucks Program to encourage low-income shoppers to purchase fresh produce as one potential strategy in a comprehensive approach to increasing healthful food access and affordability in low-income neighborhoods.

摘要

简介

提高新鲜农产品的可及性和可负担性是各市政府对抗肥胖和相关健康问题的重要策略。农贸市场为城市环境中的干预提供了一个有前途的场所,近年来,越来越多的项目为补充营养援助计划(SNAP)的接受者提供了经济激励。然而,很少有研究探讨这些计划对 SNAP 接受者在农贸市场使用 SNAP 福利的影响。

方法

纽约市的健康券计划为 SNAP 接受者提供了一个 2 美元的优惠券,每花费 5 美元的 SNAP 福利在参与的农贸市场。我们分析了大约 4 年的电子福利转移(EBT)销售数据,从 2006 年 7 月到 2009 年 11 月,初步评估了健康券计划对参与市场 EBT 支出的影响。

结果

提供健康券优惠券给 SNAP 接受者的农贸市场的平均 EBT 销售额高于没有激励措施的市场(383.07 美元,95%置信区间[CI],333.1-433.1,与 273.97 美元,95%CI,243.4-304.5,P < 0.001)在引入直接的点购买激励措施后。多元分析表明,在调整市场举办年份和社区贫困水平后,这种差异仍然存在。

结论

当 2 美元的经济激励与 EBT 一起发放时,参与纽约市农贸市场的 SNAP 福利使用增加。我们鼓励其他城市司法管辖区考虑采用健康券计划,鼓励低收入购物者购买新鲜农产品,作为增加低收入社区健康食品可及性和可负担性的综合方法的一种潜在策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7a/3786628/2c4b7ebcec86/PCD-10-E163s02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7a/3786628/40004031a73b/PCD-10-E163s01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7a/3786628/2c4b7ebcec86/PCD-10-E163s02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7a/3786628/40004031a73b/PCD-10-E163s01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7a/3786628/2c4b7ebcec86/PCD-10-E163s02.jpg

相似文献

1
The impact of New York City's Health Bucks Program on electronic benefit transfer spending at farmers markets, 2006-2009.纽约市健康券计划对 2006-2009 年农贸市场电子福利转账支出的影响。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Sep 26;10:E163. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.130113.
2
Improving fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income customers at farmers markets: Philly Food Bucks, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2011.提高农贸市场低收入顾客的水果和蔬菜消费:费城食品券,宾夕法尼亚州费城,2011 年。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Oct 3;10:E166. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120356.
3
Increasing access to farmers markets for beneficiaries of nutrition assistance: evaluation of the farmers market access project.增加营养援助受益人群对农贸市场的接触:农贸市场准入项目评估。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Oct 3;10:E168. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.130121.
4
Increasing supplemental nutrition assistance program/electronic benefits transfer sales at farmers' markets with vendor-operated wireless point-of-sale terminals.利用供应商运营的无线销售点终端增加农贸市场的补充营养援助计划/电子福利转账销售。
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 May;112(5):636-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2011.12.021. Epub 2012 Mar 16.
5
Implementing a farmers' market incentive program: perspectives on the New York City Health Bucks Program.实施农贸市场激励计划:对纽约市健康券计划的看法。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Aug 29;10:E145. doi: 10.5888/pcd10.120285.
6
Using spatial analysis to examine best placement of electronic benefit transfer services at farmers' markets in Honolulu County, Hawaii, USA.利用空间分析方法,研究美国夏威夷火奴鲁鲁县农贸市场中电子福利转账服务的最佳位置。
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Dec;21(17):3151-3157. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018001945. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
7
"Doubling Up" on Produce at Detroit Farmers Markets: Patterns and Correlates of Use of a Healthy Food Incentive.底特律农贸市场“加倍”供应农产品:使用健康食品激励措施的模式和关联因素。
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Feb;54(2):181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.005. Epub 2017 Dec 12.
8
Opportunities and Challenges of California's Fruit and Vegetable Electronic Benefit Transfer Pilot Project at Farmers' Markets: A Qualitative Study with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Shoppers and Farmers' Market Staff.加利福尼亚州农贸市场水果和蔬菜电子福利转账试点项目的机遇与挑战:对补充营养援助计划购物者和农贸市场工作人员的定性研究。
Nutrients. 2024 Oct 5;16(19):3388. doi: 10.3390/nu16193388.
9
Identifying and assessing factors affecting farmers' markets Electronic Benefit Transfer sales in Hawai'i.识别和评估影响夏威夷农贸市场电子福利转账销售的因素。
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jun;23(9):1618-1628. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019004051. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
10
Evaluation of an Educational Initiative to Promote Shopping at Farmers' Markets Among the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Participants in New York City.纽约市妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充营养计划(WIC)参与者中促进农贸市场购物的教育倡议评估。
J Community Health. 2017 Aug;42(4):701-706. doi: 10.1007/s10900-016-0306-3.

引用本文的文献

1
High street retail environment interventions and their theorised impacts on health and wellbeing: A scoping review.高街零售环境干预及其对健康和幸福感的理论影响:范围综述。
PLoS One. 2024 Nov 14;19(11):e0312826. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312826. eCollection 2024.
2
Effectiveness of implemented global dietary interventions: a scoping review of fiscal policies.实施全球饮食干预措施的效果:财政政策的范围界定综述。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Sep 19;24(1):2552. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19988-4.
3
Advancing Lifestyle Medicine in New York City's Public Health Care System.

本文引用的文献

1
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.美国北卡罗来纳州东部的女性生殖年龄群体中,农贸市场和超市的可达性、购物模式、水果和蔬菜消费与健康指标之间的关系。
Public Health Nutr. 2013 Nov;16(11):1944-52. doi: 10.1017/S1368980013001389. Epub 2013 May 24.
2
Feasibility of increasing access to healthy foods in neighborhood corner stores.增加社区街角商店健康食品供应的可行性。
J Community Health. 2013 Aug;38(4):741-9. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9673-1.
3
Neighbourhood and consumer food environment is associated with dietary intake among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in Fayette County, Kentucky.
推进纽约市公共医疗系统中的生活方式医学
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2024 May 21;8(3):279-292. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2024.01.005. eCollection 2024 Jun.
4
Which Program Implementation Factors Lead to more Fruit and Vegetable Purchases? An Exploratory Analysis of Nutrition Incentive Programs across the United States.哪些项目实施因素会促使人们购买更多水果和蔬菜?对美国营养激励项目的探索性分析。
Curr Dev Nutr. 2023 Nov 22;7(12):102040. doi: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2023.102040. eCollection 2023 Dec.
5
The California Nutrition Incentive Program: Participants' Perceptions and Associations with Produce Purchases, Consumption, and Food Security.加利福尼亚营养激励计划:参与者对购买、消费农产品和食品安全的看法及关联。
Nutrients. 2022 Jun 29;14(13):2699. doi: 10.3390/nu14132699.
6
Racial, Gender, and Age Dynamics in Michigan's Urban and Rural Farmers Markets: Reducing Food Insecurity, and the Impacts of a Pandemic.密歇根州城乡农贸市场中的种族、性别和年龄动态:减少粮食不安全状况以及疫情的影响
Am Behav Sci. 2022 Jun;66(7):894-936. doi: 10.1177/00027642211013387. Epub 2021 May 8.
7
How Does the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program Work? A Theory of Change.古斯曼·舒马赫营养激励计划是如何运作的?一个变革理论。
Nutrients. 2022 May 11;14(10):2018. doi: 10.3390/nu14102018.
8
Comparison of Fruit and Vegetable Prices between Farmers' Markets and Supermarkets: Implications for Fruit and Vegetable Incentive Programs for Food Assistance Program Participants.农贸市场和超市的果蔬价格比较:对食品援助计划参与者的果蔬激励计划的启示。
Nutrients. 2022 Apr 28;14(9):1842. doi: 10.3390/nu14091842.
9
Reducing food insecurity and improving fruit and vegetable intake through a nutrition incentive program in Michigan, USA.通过美国密歇根州的一项营养激励计划减少粮食不安全状况并改善水果和蔬菜摄入量。
SSM Popul Health. 2021 Aug 17;15:100898. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100898. eCollection 2021 Sep.
10
Providing food to patients in primary care to induce weight loss: a systematic literature review.在初级保健中为患者提供食物以诱导体重减轻:一项系统的文献综述。
BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2021 Mar 26;4(1):333-341. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000195. eCollection 2021.
肯塔基州费耶特县补充营养援助计划(SNAP)参与者的邻里和消费者食品环境与饮食摄入有关。
Public Health Nutr. 2013 Jul;16(7):1229-37. doi: 10.1017/S1368980013000505. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
4
Of personal choice and level playing fields: why we need government policies on food content.关于个人选择和平等竞争环境:为何我们需要政府出台食品成分政策。
Am J Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1624. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300952. Epub 2012 Jul 19.
5
Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of chronic diseases.**综述**:蔬菜和水果在慢性病预防中的作用。
Eur J Nutr. 2012 Sep;51(6):637-63. doi: 10.1007/s00394-012-0380-y. Epub 2012 Jun 9.
6
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2011.美国农业部和美国卫生与公众服务部,《2010年美国人膳食指南》。第7版,华盛顿特区:美国政府印刷局,2011年1月。
Adv Nutr. 2011 May;2(3):293-4. doi: 10.3945/an.111.000430. Epub 2011 Apr 30.
7
Fifty communities putting prevention to work: accelerating chronic disease prevention through policy, systems and environmental change.五十个社区积极开展预防工作:通过政策、制度和环境改变促进慢性病预防。
J Community Health. 2012 Oct;37(5):1081-90. doi: 10.1007/s10900-012-9542-3.
8
Low consumption of fruit and vegetables and risk of chronic disease: a review of the epidemiological evidence and temporal trends among Spanish graduates.低水果和蔬菜摄入量与慢性病风险:对西班牙毕业生的流行病学证据和时间趋势的综述。
Public Health Nutr. 2011 Dec;14(12A):2309-15. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011002564.
9
State- and payer-specific estimates of annual medical expenditures attributable to obesity.按州和支付方划分的肥胖导致的年度医疗支出估计。
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 Jan;20(1):214-20. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.169. Epub 2011 Jun 16.
10
The rationale behind small food store interventions in low-income urban neighborhoods: insights from New Orleans.低收入城市社区小型食品店干预措施的基本原理:来自新奥尔良的见解。
J Nutr. 2010 Jun;140(6):1185-8. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.113266. Epub 2010 Apr 21.