Alicia J Cohen1, Kelsie E Oatmen2, Michele Heisler3, Oran B Hesterman4, Ellen C Murphy5, Suzanna M Zick6, Caroline R Richardson7. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: calicia@umich.edu. 2. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Fair Food Network, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Healthy food incentives matching Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits spent on fruits and vegetables subsidize increased produce consumption among low-income individuals at risk for food insecurity and diet-related disease. Yet many eligible participants do not use these incentives, in part because of limited awareness. This study examined the acceptability and impact of a primary care-based informational intervention on facilitators and barriers to use of the statewide SNAP incentive program Double Up Food Bucks. METHODS: Focus groups (n=5) were conducted April-June 2015 among a purposive sample (n=26) of SNAP-enrolled adults from a Michigan health clinic serving low-income patients. All had participated in a waiting room-based informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks; none had used Double Up Food Bucks before the intervention. Groups were stratified by Double Up Food Bucks use/non-use during the 6-month intervention period. Results were analyzed in 2016-2017 through an iterative content analysis process. RESULTS: Participants reported the waiting room intervention was acceptable and a key facilitator of first-time Double Up Food Bucks use. Motivators for Double Up Food Bucks use included (1) eating more healthfully, (2) stretching SNAP benefits, (3) higher-quality produce at markets, and (4) unique market environments. Remaining barriers included (1) lack of transportation, (2) limited market locations/hours, and (3) persistent confusion among a small number of participants regarding incentive use. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income patients who received an informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks reported numerous benefits from participation. Yet barriers remained for a subset of patients. Improving geographic accessibility and ease of SNAP incentive redemption may further improve dietary quality and food security among vulnerable populations. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Healthy food incentives matching Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits spent on fruits and vegetables subsidize increased produce consumption among low-income individuals at risk for food insecurity and diet-related disease. Yet many eligible participants do not use these incentives, in part because of limited awareness. This study examined the acceptability and impact of a primary care-based informational intervention on facilitators and barriers to use of the statewide SNAP incentive program Double Up Food Bucks. METHODS: Focus groups (n=5) were conducted April-June 2015 among a purposive sample (n=26) of SNAP-enrolled adults from a Michigan health clinic serving low-income patients. All had participated in a waiting room-based informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks; none had used Double Up Food Bucks before the intervention. Groups were stratified by Double Up Food Bucks use/non-use during the 6-month intervention period. Results were analyzed in 2016-2017 through an iterative content analysis process. RESULTS:Participants reported the waiting room intervention was acceptable and a key facilitator of first-time Double Up Food Bucks use. Motivators for Double Up Food Bucks use included (1) eating more healthfully, (2) stretching SNAP benefits, (3) higher-quality produce at markets, and (4) unique market environments. Remaining barriers included (1) lack of transportation, (2) limited market locations/hours, and (3) persistent confusion among a small number of participants regarding incentive use. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income patients who received an informational intervention about Double Up Food Bucks reported numerous benefits from participation. Yet barriers remained for a subset of patients. Improving geographic accessibility and ease of SNAP incentive redemption may further improve dietary quality and food security among vulnerable populations. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Lauren Ew Olsho; Gayle Holmes Payne; Deborah Klein Walker; Sabrina Baronberg; Jan Jernigan; Alyson Abrami Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Alicia J Cohen; Caroline R Richardson; Michele Heisler; Ananda Sen; Ellen C Murphy; Oran B Hesterman; Matthew M Davis; Suzanna M Zick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alicia J Cohen; Laurie L Lachance; Caroline R Richardson; Elham Mahmoudi; Jason D Buxbaum; George K Noonan; Ellen C Murphy; Dana N Roberson; Oran B Hesterman; Michele Heisler; Suzanna M Zick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lauren Vargo; Timothy H Ciesielski; Milen Embaye; Ana Bird; Darcy A Freedman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gabriella M McLoughlin; Eric M Wiedenman; Sarah Gehlert; Ross C Brownson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 4.614