Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Adv Nutr. 2023 Sep;14(5):1067-1084. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.05.012. Epub 2023 May 26.
The high cost of healthy foods makes maintaining a healthy dietary pattern challenging, particularly among people with diabetes who are experiencing food insecurity. The objectives of this study were to: 1) review evidence on the impact of providing material benefits (e.g., food coupons/vouchers, free food, or financial subsidies/incentives) to improve access to food on clinical parameters, dietary intake, and household food insecurity in people with diabetes, and 2) review relevant economic evidence. Six databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for longitudinal studies with quantitative outcomes. Twenty-one studies were included in the primary review and 2 in the economic analysis. Risk of bias was high in 20 studies and moderate in 1 study. The number of randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies reporting statistically significant improvement, alongside Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty of the evidence was: HbA1c: 1/6 and 4/12 (very low), systolic blood pressure: 0/3 and 1/8 (very low), diastolic blood pressure: 0/3 and 1/7 (very low), BMI: 0/5 and 2/8 (very low), body weight: 0/0 and 1/3 (very low), hypoglycemia: 1/2 and 1/2 (very low), daily intake of fruits and vegetables: 1/1 and 1/3 (very low), daily intake of whole grains: 0/0 and 0/2 (very low), overall diet quality: 2/2 and 1/1 (low), and household food insecurity: 2/3 and 0/0 (very low). The 2 studies included in the economic analysis showed no difference in Medicare spending from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and cost-savings from medically tailored meals in an economic simulation. Overall, providing material benefits to improve access to food for people with diabetes may improve household food insecurity, fruit and vegetable intake, and overall diet quality, but effects on clinical parameters and whole grain intake are unclear. The certainty of evidence was very low to low by GRADE. PROSPERO (CRD42021212951).
健康食品的高成本使得维持健康的饮食模式具有挑战性,尤其是在那些面临食物不安全的糖尿病患者中。本研究的目的是:1)综述提供物质利益(如食品券/优惠券、免费食品或财政补贴/激励)以改善糖尿病患者食物获取的证据,评估其对临床参数、饮食摄入和家庭食物不安全的影响,2)综述相关的经济证据。从研究开始到 2023 年 3 月,在六个数据库中检索了具有定量结果的纵向研究。21 项研究被纳入主要综述,2 项研究被纳入经济分析。20 项研究的偏倚风险较高,1 项研究的偏倚风险为中度。报告统计学上显著改善的随机对照试验和非随机研究的数量以及推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)证据确定性等级为:HbA1c:1/6 和 4/12(极低),收缩压:0/3 和 1/8(极低),舒张压:0/3 和 1/7(极低),BMI:0/5 和 2/8(极低),体重:0/0 和 1/3(极低),低血糖:1/2 和 1/2(极低),水果和蔬菜每日摄入量:1/1 和 1/3(极低),全谷物每日摄入量:0/0 和 0/2(极低),整体饮食质量:2/2 和 1/1(低),家庭食物不安全:2/3 和 0/0(极低)。纳入经济分析的 2 项研究表明,补充营养援助计划参与对医疗保险支出没有影响,经济模拟中的医疗定制膳食具有成本节约。总体而言,为改善糖尿病患者的食物获取提供物质利益可能会改善家庭食物不安全、水果和蔬菜摄入量以及整体饮食质量,但对临床参数和全谷物摄入量的影响尚不清楚。GRADE 确定证据的确定性等级为极低至低。PROSPERO(CRD42021212951)。