ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
Improving public health data collection approaches across populations: findings from a national evaluation of fruit and vegetable incentives.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePublic health approaches for addressing diet-related health in the USA include nutrition incentive (NI) and produce prescription (PPR) projects. These projects, funded through the US Department of Agriculture Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), aim to support the intake of fruits and vegetables through healthy food incentives. Measuring the GusNIP impact is vital to assessing the ability of incentives to improve public health nutrition outcomes across populations. Shared measures used across GusNIP projects assess fruit and vegetable intake, food security and demographics, among other variables, through a participant survey. This study explored challenges and opportunities to evaluation across populations within a national public health oriented program, GusNIP.
designThis qualitative study used a sociodemographic survey, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey data, and applied thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in interview and focus group data.
settingData collection occurred in the USA virtually using Qualtrics and Zoom from fall 2021 to fall 2022.
participantsEighteen GusNIP PPR and NI data collectors, twenty-four external evaluators and eleven GusNIP National Training, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Information Center staff participated.
resultsOpportunities to improve evaluation among GusNIP's participants include tailoring surveys to specific subpopulations, translations, culturally appropriate food examples, avoiding stigmatising language, using mixed methods and intentional strategies to enhance representation.
conclusionTo increase applicability of data collection in public health programs, evaluation tools must reflect the experiences across populations. This study provides insights that can guide future NI, PPR and public health evaluations, helping to more effectively measure and understand outcomes of all communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.