Milken Institute School of Public Health Poster Presentations (Marvin Center & Video)

Comparison of Health Food Incentive Redemption Rates: A Systematic Review

Poster Number

50

Document Type

Poster

Publication Date

3-2016

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Healthy food incentive (HFI) programs may increase food access for low-income individuals. In many HFI programs, participants must spend part of their nutrition assistance benefits at a farmers’ market in order to receive a matching incentive. Conversely, the Produce Plus program offered by the District of Columbia Department of Health provides low-income residents with a flat $10 voucher/family/market/day to purchase produce from farmers’ markets. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether Produce Plus redemption rates differ from other HFI programs.

METHODS: A systematic search of scientific and grey literature databases was performed to identify potentially eligible articles. Inclusion criteria included: US-based program, participants were federal nutrition assistance recipients, incentive vouchers were redeemable at farmers’ markets, and redemption rates or effect on other federal assistance redemption were reported. Program administration data and redemption rates were abstracted from eligible articles.

RESULTS: After inclusion criteria were applied to the 257 articles identified in the database search, 14 studies remained for analysis. Redemption rates ranged from 45%-93%, with highest rates in the Health Bucks program (93%), a WIC intervention study (91%) and Produce Plus (90.4%) -all at least partially flat benefit programs. Programs that distributed benefits at the farmers’ market also tended to have higher redemption rates. Monetary value of the benefits offered by each program varied considerably, but tended to be higher in flat benefit programs ($20-160/season).

DISCUSSION: Flat benefit programs may have higher redemption rates because of lower burden and higher monetary benefit. On-site distribution may also improve redemption

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Open Access

1

Comments

Presented at: GW Research Days 2016.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Comparison of Health Food Incentive Redemption Rates: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION: Healthy food incentive (HFI) programs may increase food access for low-income individuals. In many HFI programs, participants must spend part of their nutrition assistance benefits at a farmers’ market in order to receive a matching incentive. Conversely, the Produce Plus program offered by the District of Columbia Department of Health provides low-income residents with a flat $10 voucher/family/market/day to purchase produce from farmers’ markets. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether Produce Plus redemption rates differ from other HFI programs.

METHODS: A systematic search of scientific and grey literature databases was performed to identify potentially eligible articles. Inclusion criteria included: US-based program, participants were federal nutrition assistance recipients, incentive vouchers were redeemable at farmers’ markets, and redemption rates or effect on other federal assistance redemption were reported. Program administration data and redemption rates were abstracted from eligible articles.

RESULTS: After inclusion criteria were applied to the 257 articles identified in the database search, 14 studies remained for analysis. Redemption rates ranged from 45%-93%, with highest rates in the Health Bucks program (93%), a WIC intervention study (91%) and Produce Plus (90.4%) -all at least partially flat benefit programs. Programs that distributed benefits at the farmers’ market also tended to have higher redemption rates. Monetary value of the benefits offered by each program varied considerably, but tended to be higher in flat benefit programs ($20-160/season).

DISCUSSION: Flat benefit programs may have higher redemption rates because of lower burden and higher monetary benefit. On-site distribution may also improve redemption