ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProduce prescriptions (PRx) may improve diet quality and food security. However, there is little data to inform PRx dose recommendations.
objectiveTo identify how PRx dose affects benefit redemption, food security, and fruit/vegetable (FV) intake.
designThree-arm, prospective randomized community trial.
participantsAdult clients of a community-based nonprofit social service provider.
interventionsMonthly electronic distribution of $40, $80, or $110 (equivalent to 10%, 20%, or 30% of the FV component of the USDA Thrifty Food Plan) for 6 months, redeemable at major grocery stores only for FV. MAIN MEASURES: Primary (benefit redemption) and secondary (food security and FV intake) outcomes were assessed at 3 months (primary endpoint) and 6 months. KEY
resultsStudy participants (n = 242) were randomized to $40 (n = 81), $80 (n = 80), or $110 (n = 81) PRx arms. Mean (SD) age was 35.16 (9.45) years and 235 (97.1%) self-identified as female and 200 (82.6%) as Hispanic. Overall, there appeared to be a dose-response relationship with progressively greater benefit redemption rate, food security, and FV consumption as PRx dose increased. Compared with $40, the $110 PRx dose significantly improved food insecurity (p = 0.01) and FV intake (p = 0.03) at 3 months, and the benefit redemption rate (p = 0.04) at 6 months. At 3 months, the benefit redemption rate was 60.2% (95%CI 51.9-68.6%) $40 group, 67.6% (95%CI 59.9-75.3%) $80 group, and 70.4% (95%CI 63.0-77.9%) $110 group. Food insecurity was reported for 74.3% (95%CI 62.0-86.6%) $40 group, 66.2% (95%CI 50.1-82.2%) $80 group, and 47.4% (95%CI 31.6-63.1%) $110 group. Mean FV consumption in cups/day was 2.51 (95%CI 2.31-2.72) $40 group, 2.66 (95%CI 2.38-2.95) $80 group, and 2.89 (95%CI 2.61-3.17) $110 group.
conclusionsHigher PRx dose increased benefit redemption, food security, and FV consumption, especially when comparing the $110 and $40 doses. Dose is an important design element to improve PRx redemption levels and potentially PRx-related health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42745148What 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.