Nutrition Policy Institute, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, CA 94607, USA.
Nutrients. 2022 Jun 29;14(13):2699. doi: 10.3390/nu14132699.
We examined the associations of a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) point-of-purchase financial incentive program at farmers' markets with produce purchase, consumption, and food security outcomes. We conducted cross-sectional, interviewer-administered intercept surveys with 325 adult SNAP participants at six incentive programs, five comparison farmers' markets, and nine comparison supermarkets in California in the summer of 2018. The program provided dollar-for-dollar point-of-purchase incentives with $10 or $20 maximum at participating farmers' markets. We measured produce consumption by an NCI screener; food security by the USDA 6-item screener; and program satisfaction with open-ended questions asked of a subsample. The quantitative analysis involved multilevel linear and logistic regression, adjusted for covariates. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed thematically. Shoppers at farmers' markets offering $20 incentives had significantly higher odds of purchasing most of their produce at farmers' markets than shoppers at $10 incentive (3.1, CI: 1.1, 8.7) or comparison markets (8.1, CI 2.2, 29.7). Incentives were not associated with quantitatively measured produce consumption. Each additional incentive dollar was associated with reduced odds of food insecurity (0.987, CI 0.976, 0.999). Participants appreciated the program; supermarket shoppers lacked awareness. Point-of-purchase incentives are appreciated and underutilized. Further understanding of optimal program design for produce consumption and food security impact is needed.
我们研究了补充营养援助计划(SNAP)在农贸市场的即买即享财政激励计划与农产品购买、消费和粮食安全结果之间的关联。我们在 2018 年夏天在加利福尼亚州的六个激励计划、五个比较农贸市场和九个比较超市,对 325 名成年 SNAP 参与者进行了横断面、访谈员管理的拦截调查。该计划在参与的农贸市场提供了 10 美元或 20 美元的即时购买激励。我们通过 NCI 筛查器衡量农产品消费;通过美国农业部的 6 项筛查器衡量粮食安全;通过对抽样的开放式问题衡量计划满意度。定量分析涉及多层次线性和逻辑回归,调整了协变量。定性数据进行了编码和主题分析。与 10 美元激励或比较市场相比,在提供 20 美元激励的农贸市场购物的消费者,购买大部分农产品的可能性明显更高(3.1,CI:1.1,8.7)。激励措施与定量测量的农产品消费无关。每增加一美元激励,粮食不安全的可能性就会降低(0.987,CI 0.976,0.999)。参与者对该计划表示赞赏;超市购物者缺乏意识。即买即享激励计划受到赞赏但未得到充分利用。需要进一步了解促进农产品消费和粮食安全影响的最佳计划设计。