Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42601102›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Evaluating the impact of the Ripe for Revival mobile market with vouchers on food and nutrition security, fruit and vegetable intake, and blood pressure in rural eastern North Carolina: a quasi-experimental trial design study protocol.

Basheerah Enahora, Stephanie Jilcott Pitts, Qiang Wu, Johnathan Tyndall, Kennae Rawlings, Pauline Grist, Brenna Kirk, Shonna Smith

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07218978 (Ripe for Revival), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07218978 narecruitingnot on this map

Ripe for Revival: Outcomes Evaluation of a Mobile Produce Market With Vouchers

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorth Carolina State UniversityRan2026 to 2028Enrolled150ConditionsDiet Interventions, Food Security, Nutrition Security, Fruit and Vegetable IntakeArmsMobile Market Voucher Outcomes Study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Basheerah EnahoraDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA benahor@ncsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8628-8102
Stephanie Jilcott PittsDepartment of Public Health, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Qiang WuDepartment of Public Health, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Johnathan TyndallRipe for Revival, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, USA.
Kennae RawlingsDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Pauline GristDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Brenna KirkDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Shonna SmithDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRural residents are less likely to meet the recommendations for fruit and vegetable intake and disproportionately carry the burden of nutrition-related chronic disease. Nutrition incentive or voucher programmes aim to increase fruit and vegetable intake by reducing the financial burden of purchasing produce. Additionally, mobile markets have emerged as a potential strategy for increasing access to affordable fresh fruits and vegetables, particularly among rural residents. Yet, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of mobile markets to improve fruit and vegetable intake and the food and nutrition security status of rural residents, particularly those provided with vouchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This quasi-experimental, pre-post study examines the impact of vouchers provided to North Carolina (NC) Cooperative Extension programme participants to shop for produce at the Ripe for Revival (RfR) mobile market in eight rural eastern NC counties. The RfR mobile market sells fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat and milk at affordable prices in rural, economically disadvantaged communities. The trial's primary outcome is the change in fruit and vegetable intake (self-reported and objectively measured) among rural Extension participants who use vouchers to shop at the RfR mobile market. The trial's secondary outcomes include food security status, nutrition security status, blood pressure, height, weight (Body Mass Index (BMI) calculated), food utilisation, mobile market satisfaction, voucher redemption, and pounds and dollars of produce distributed. We will recruit participants (n=150) through NC Cooperative Extension programmes in the eight participating counties to receive a $20 monthly voucher each month for 3 months and shop at the RfR mobile market. Data will be collected at 4 time points: baseline (week 0, when a voucher is issued), 4-6 weeks post-baseline (1 month), 8-10 weeks post-baseline (2 months) and 12-16 weeks post-baseline (3 months). One-sided paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (depending on normality) will evaluate mobile market voucher effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board approved the trial procedures. We plan to disseminate the main outcomes at the conclusion of grant funding (year 2) in both scientific and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT07218978.

Indexed as

Blood PressureFood AssistanceFood SecurityFood SupplyFruitVegetablesAdultCommerceFemaleHumansMaleNorth CarolinaRural PopulationBehaviorBlood PressureClinical ProtocolsFood InsecurityNUTRITION & DIETETICSPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID42601102
PMCPMC13479478

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.