Swartz Haley
The Linda Golodner Food and Nutrition Policy Fellow at the National Consumers League in Washington, DC; and was on the research staff for the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program at Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University.
AMA J Ethics. 2018 Oct 1;20(10):E960-973. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2018.960.
To explore the ethical and policy implications of produce prescription (Rx) programs, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature on existing Rx programs in February 2018.
A review of the literature identified 19 articles published on produce Rx programs; all were included in the review. Inclusion criteria were interactions between a medical professional and patient in a health care setting where a prescription for the consumption of fruits and vegetables was provided. Programs were further classified by whether patients were recruited based on eligibility criteria such as low socioeconomic status, diet-related condition, and the type of referring physician. An ethical matrix was then used to evaluate well-being, autonomy, and fairness from the perspectives of adult and child patients, patient families, participating local farmers, physicians, and government assistance programs.
Patients with low income were subjects of 14 articles; 13 studies identified populations with diet-related health conditions such as diabetes or hypertension. Only 9 studies examined both health conditions and low socioeconomic status. An ethical analysis indicated that despite reducing financial burdens and increasing food choice, Rx programs might have unintended psychosocial consequences on participants with low income. Health care professionals benefit from employing a partnership model of care, building trust, and emotional intelligence. Participating farmers benefit from an enlarged customer base but might experience greater financial burdens. Some produce Rx programs could use existing government assistance programs (ie, Medicaid in medically underserved areas or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in food deserts), although disbursement may be cost inefficient and disorganized without policy cohesion at all levels of government.
Future research must test a variety of produce Rx program designs to ameliorate tradeoffs between well-being, fairness, and autonomy. As pilots grow in scale, produce Rx programs must acknowledge the critical roles and perspectives of health care professionals and local participating farmers. Programs must also determine whether Rx incentives will use the existing government assistance programs to identify patients with low income, with diet-related health conditions, or with both.
为探讨农产品处方(Rx)项目的伦理和政策影响,于2018年2月在PubMed、Embase和Scopus数据库中检索了关于现有Rx项目的同行评议文献。
文献综述确定了19篇关于农产品Rx项目的已发表文章;所有文章均纳入综述。纳入标准为医疗专业人员与患者在医疗环境中的互动,其中提供了水果和蔬菜消费的处方。项目进一步根据是否根据社会经济地位低、饮食相关疾病以及转诊医生类型等资格标准招募患者进行分类。然后使用伦理矩阵从成年和儿童患者、患者家庭、参与项目的当地农民、医生以及政府援助项目的角度评估福祉、自主性和公平性。
14篇文章的研究对象为低收入患者;13项研究确定了患有糖尿病或高血压等与饮食相关健康状况的人群。只有9项研究同时考察了健康状况和社会经济地位低的情况。伦理分析表明,尽管Rx项目减轻了经济负担并增加了食物选择,但可能会对低收入参与者产生意想不到的心理社会影响。医疗保健专业人员受益于采用合作式护理模式、建立信任和提高情商。参与项目的农民受益于扩大的客户群,但可能会承受更大的经济负担。一些农产品Rx项目可以利用现有的政府援助项目(即在医疗服务不足地区的医疗补助或在食品荒漠地区的补充营养援助计划,即SNAP),尽管在各级政府缺乏政策协调的情况下,资金发放可能成本低效且混乱无序。
未来的研究必须测试各种农产品Rx项目设计,以改善福祉、公平性和自主性之间的权衡。随着试点规模的扩大,农产品Rx项目必须认识到医疗保健专业人员和当地参与项目的农民的关键作用和观点。项目还必须确定Rx激励措施是否将利用现有的政府援助项目来识别低收入、患有与饮食相关健康状况或两者兼有的患者。