Diet, Healthy, Health Risk Behaviors
Conditions
Brief summary
The British Columbia (BC) Farmers' Market Nutrition Coupon Program (FMNCP) provides low-income households with $21/week in coupons to purchase healthy foods at farmers' markets and supportive nutrition skill-building activities. This randomized controlled trial will assess the impact of the BC FMNCP on the overall diet quality (primary outcome), diet quality subscores, mental well-being, sense of community, experiences of food insecurity, risk of malnutrition (secondary outcomes) and subjective social status (exploratory outcome) of low-income adults immediately post-intervention and 16 weeks post-intervention.
Detailed description
Background: The British Columbia (BC) Farmers' Market Nutrition Coupon Program (FMNCP) is a healthy eating initiative funded by the BC Ministry of Health. The program provides low-income households with $21/week in coupons to purchase healthy foods at farmers' markets and supportive nutrition skill-building activities. It is not clear if the BC FMNCP is achieving its aims of improving the diet quality, well-being and health of low-income adults, as its outcomes have not been investigated, and studies of similar programs are limited by weak designs that cannot demonstrate causality. This randomized controlled trial will assess the impact of the FMNCP on the overall diet quality (primary outcome), diet quality subscores, mental well-being, sense of community, experiences of food insecurity, risk of malnutrition (secondary outcomes) and subjective social status (exploratory outcome) of low-income adults immediately post-intervention and 16 weeks post-intervention. A qualitative investigation will also explore mechanisms of action and strategies to maximize positive program impacts. Methods: Low-income adults (≥ 18 years) from up to 15 rural and urban communities will be randomized to a FMNCP intervention (n=132) or a no-intervention control group (n=132), with a 1:1 allocation ratio. An independent researcher from the Clinical Research Unit at the University of Calgary will generate a blocked randomization sequence that stratifies participants into blocks according to sex (male, female), geographic location (rural, urban), pregnancy (yes, no) and breastfeeding (yes, no). In the existing BC FMNCP, community partners distribute one to two sheets of coupons per week (each sheet contains $21 in coupons) to program participants for a total of 16 sheets. Coupons can be used over 16-20 weeks to purchase fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat/poultry/fish, eggs, nuts, and cut herbs at participating BC farmers' markets. However, to allow sufficient time to recruit participants for this study, community partners will distribute 16 coupon sheets to the FMNCP group over 10-15 weeks (households with 5-8 individuals will receive 32 coupon sheets). To ensure participants receive all 16 coupon sheets, community partners will provide two coupon sheets per household during the first 1-6 weeks of the intervention. Participants in the FMNCP group will also be invited to participate in nutrition skill-building activities (e.g., cooking classes). At baseline (0 weeks), immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks) and 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks), participants will access a pilot-tested web-based platform to report sociodemographics, health-related variables, mental well-being, sense of community, experiences of food insecurity, risk of malnutrition and subjective social status. Dietary intake will be assessed via two 24-hour dietary recalls at each time point using the Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool for Canada (ASA24-Canada-2018). Diet quality scores will be calculated using the Healthy Eating Index-2015. In addition, immediately post-intervention only, participants will report whether they received FMNCP coupons and attended nutrition skill-building activities (to assess contamination of the control group), how often and how much of their own money was spent at farmers' markets during the intervention period and the types of foods purchased. Data analysis: Descriptive analyses will be conducted to examine participant characteristics by group at each time point. Characteristics of study completers (i.e., provided data 16-weeks post-intervention) and non-completers will also be compared. Analyses will be intention-to-treat, in which participants will be analysed within the groups to which they were randomized regardless of adherence (e.g., failure to redeem coupons) or dropout. The analyses will include all participants who provided data at baseline. Repeated measures mixed-effect regression will assess differences in mean HEI-2015 scores, HEI-2015 subscores, mental well-being, sense of community, and subjective social status between the FMNCP and control groups immediately post-intervention and 16-weeks post-intervention. Repeated measures multinomial logistic regression will be used to assess differences in the odds of experiencing household food insecurity and risk of malnutrition for the FMNCP group compared to the control group immediately post-intervention and 16-weeks post-intervention. Statistical models will include intervention group (FMNCP vs control), time from baseline, intervention-by-time interaction, blocking variables (i.e., sex, rural/urban, pregnancy, breastfeeding), baseline values of the outcome, and household size as fixed effects covariates. Participant-specific (i.e., repeated measures) variations in outcomes will be modeled using random effects. Models will also include covariates specific to each outcome to increase the precision of estimates (86). For the primary outcome of overall diet quality, models will include the following: children living in the home (yes, no), sex, age, BMI, marital status, race/ethnicity, perceived health, smoking, day of data collection, and educational level. Adjusted group differences (i.e., FMNCP group vs control group) in outcomes will be estimated using 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values. Subgroup analyses will examine whether the impact of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes differs according to age group or sex. Dose-response analyses will examine whether the impact of the BC FMNCP on overall diet quality depends on the number of coupons redeemed and the number of nutrition skill-building activities attended. Interactions will be retained in statistical models if p\<0.10. Analyses will be conducted in Stata (v15.1, Stata Corp, TX, USA), with p\<0.05 indicating statistically significant differences between groups. Data interpretation will jointly consider effect sizes, confidence intervals and statistical significance. Expected outcomes: Findings will show whether and how a scalable population-level policy that links the agricultural and health sectors influences diet quality, psychosocial well-being and other outcomes among low-income adults. Study findings will inform program adjustments to improve participant outcomes. Other jurisdictions can use these data to determine whether and how to initiate similar programs. Post-hoc analysis: In a post-hoc analysis, a random forest model will be used to explore heterogeneity of program effects on diet quality (total HEI-2015 scores) among different subgroups of FMNCP study participants. Candidate predictors entered into the algorithm will include all variables examined at baseline, including sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and income) and health-related variables (e.g., self-rated health and smoking). The outcome of the random forest analysis will be total HEI-2015 scores for both the FMNCP and control groups.
Interventions
OTHERFood coupons
Participants will receive 16 coupon sheets (each sheet contains $21 in coupons) over 10-15 weeks (households with 5-8 individuals will receive 32 coupon sheets) to purchase fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat/poultry/fish, eggs, nuts, and cut herbs at participating BC farmers' markets.
Participants will be invited to participate in nutrition skill-building activities throughout the intervention period. To be consistent with the real-world program, the frequency and types of skill-building activities offered will vary by community partner, and participation is not required.
Sponsors
University of Calgary
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
British Columbia Farmers' Market Nutrition Coupon Program
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Masking description
Investigators will be blinded to group allocation if participants elect to complete data collection by telephone. Participants cannot be blinded to group assignment but will be blinded to the study objectives.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Individuals will be eligible to participate if they meet the following criteria: * Adults (age ≥ 18 years) * Low-income as determined by community-specific thresholds (\ $18,000/year annual household income before taxes) * No expected change in household income prior to study completion (March 2020) * 8 or fewer people living in the home (including the participant) * No expected change in household composition prior to study completion (March 2020) * Primary food shopper for the household * Does not have self-reported dementia or Alzheimer's Disease * Able to speak, read and write in English (or have someone who can assist them) * No plans to move from principal residence prior to study completion (March 2020) * Has not previously participated in the BC FMNCP
Exclusion criteria
• Does not meet one or more inclusion criteria
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in mean overall diet quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls and can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating higher diet quality. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in mean overall diet quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls and can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating higher diet quality. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Items on the 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale are self-reported in which each item is scored using a Likert Scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 8-40. A higher score indicates a stronger sense of community. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Items on the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale are self-reported over the past two weeks. There are 14 items with 5 response categories (1=none of the time; 5=all of the time), summed to provide a single score ranging from 14-70. A higher score indicates higher perceived mental well-being. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Items on the 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale are self-reported in which each item is scored using a Likert Scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 8-40. A higher score indicates a stronger sense of community. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the odds of experiencing household food insecurity immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the odds of experiencing household food insecurity at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition will be scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition will be scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Possible subscale scores are as follows: Adequacy components (higher score indicates a higher intake): Total vegetables (0-5) Greens and beans (0-5) Total fruits (0-5) Whole fruits (0-5) Whole grains (0-10) Dairy (0-10) Total protein foods (0-5) Seafood and plant proteins (0-5) Fatty acids (0-10) Moderation components (higher score indicates a lower intake) Sodium (0-10) Refined grains (0-10) Saturated fats (0-10) Added sugars (0-10) |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Possible subscale scores are as follows: Adequacy components (higher score indicates a higher intake): Total vegetables (0-5) Greens and beans (0-5) Total fruits (0-5) Whole fruits (0-5) Whole grains (0-10) Dairy (0-10) Total protein foods (0-5) Seafood and plant proteins (0-5) Fatty acids (0-10) Moderation components (higher score indicates a lower intake) Sodium (0-10) Refined grains (0-10) Saturated fats (0-10) Added sugars (0-10) |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of experiencing marginal, moderate, or severe household food insecurity (relative to being food secure) immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of experiencing marginal, moderate, or severe household food insecurity (relative to being food secure) at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of being at a medium or high risk of malnutrition (relative to being at low risk of malnutrition) by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition was scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). | Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of being at a medium or high risk of malnutrition (relative to being at low risk of malnutrition) by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition was scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | Items on the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale are self-reported over the past two weeks. There are 14 items with 5 response categories (1=none of the time; 5=all of the time), summed to provide a single score ranging from 14-70. A higher score indicates higher perceived mental well-being. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Adequacy and moderation components are each scored from 0-5, except for whole grains, dairy, and fatty acids, which are each scored from 0-10. For adequacy components, a higher score indicates a higher intake, whereas, for moderation components, a higher score indicates a lower intake. |
| Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks) | Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. |
| Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks) | Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. |
| Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Self-reported frequency of purchasing food in farmers' markets. How often did you buy food at a farmers' market (using coupons or money)? |
| Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Self-reported frequency of money spent at farmers' markets (excluding coupons) among participants who reported purchasing foods from farmers' markets. How often did you spend household money at a farmers' market? Do not include items you bought with coupons (if applicable). |
| Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Self-reported amount of money spent at farmers' markets using coupons and own money |
| Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Number of coupons redeemed to purchase vegetables, fruit, meat and fish, eggs, dairy, cut herbs, and nuts. |
| Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Self-Reported Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets using own money (excluding coupons). |
| Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Self-reported data on attendance to nutrition skill-building activities (Did you go to nutrition skill building activities offered by your community partner?) |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks) | The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status community ladder consists of a self-reported visual analog scale, whereby respondents place themselves on a ladder rung according to their perceived social standing relative to others in their community. Responses can take a value from 1-10, with a higher score indicating higher perceived social status in relation to others' within ones' community. |
| Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks) | Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Adequacy and moderation components are each scored from 0-5, except for whole grains, dairy, and fatty acids, which are each scored from 0-10. For adequacy components, a higher score indicates a higher intake, whereas, for moderation components, a higher score indicates a lower intake. |
| Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | post-intervention (10-15 weeks). | The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status community ladder consists of a self-reported visual analog scale, whereby respondents place themselves on a ladder rung according to their perceived social standing relative to others in their community. Responses can take a value from 1-10, with a higher score indicating higher perceived social status in relation to others' within ones' community. |
Countries
Canada
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Community partners recruited study participants throughout BC from June to August 2019 from among their existing clients who were on the FMNCP waitlist in-person or via phone or email. Those who were interested in participating were provided details about the study and screened for eligibility. The first participant was enrolled on June 3, 2019 and the last participant was enrolled on August 23, 2019.
Pre-assignment details
285 participants agreed to participate in the study following completion of the informed consent process and were randomized.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| FMNCP Group Study participants in the FMNCP group received 16 coupon sheets valued at CAD $21/sheet over 10-15 weeks to purchase healthy foods from farmers' markets and were eligible to participate in nutrition skill-building activities. | 143 |
| Control Group Study participants in the control group did not receive coupons and were not eligible to participate in nutrition skill-building activities. | 142 |
| Total | 285 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 11 | 17 |
| Overall Study | Protocol Violation | 1 | 0 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | FMNCP Group | Control Group | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 43.7 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16 | 41.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.2 | 42.6 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.1 |
| Healthy Eating Index 2015 scores | 60.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.3 | 60.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.7 | 60.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.5 |
| Household food insecurity Food secure | 24 Participants | 36 Participants | 60 Participants |
| Household food insecurity Marginal food insecurity | 15 Participants | 9 Participants | 24 Participants |
| Household food insecurity Missing | 9 Participants | 6 Participants | 15 Participants |
| Household food insecurity Moderate food insecurity | 57 Participants | 59 Participants | 116 Participants |
| Household food insecurity Severe food insecurity | 38 Participants | 32 Participants | 70 Participants |
| Malnutrition risk High | 8 Participants | 11 Participants | 19 Participants |
| Malnutrition risk Low | 101 Participants | 94 Participants | 195 Participants |
| Malnutrition risk Medium | 14 Participants | 18 Participants | 32 Participants |
| Malnutrition risk Missing | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Mental Well-being | 48.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4 | 49.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.5 | 48.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.5 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Black | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity East or Southeast Asian | 14 Participants | 11 Participants | 25 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Indigenous | 15 Participants | 10 Participants | 25 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Missing | 14 Participants | 14 Participants | 28 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Other | 4 Participants | 8 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity South or West Asian | 46 Participants | 44 Participants | 90 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity White | 47 Participants | 50 Participants | 97 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment Canada | 143 participants | 142 participants | 285 participants |
| Sense of community | 29.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.5 | 29.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6 | 29.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.8 |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 130 Participants | 128 Participants | 258 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 13 Participants | 14 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Subjective social status | 6.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 | 6.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.2 | 6.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
Primary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in mean overall diet quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls and can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating higher diet quality.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 62.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 1.4 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 59.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 1.4 |
p-value: 0.5795% CI: [-3, 5.44]Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in mean overall diet quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls and can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating higher diet quality.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 63.6 score on a scale | Standard Error 1.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Overall Diet Quality by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Scores Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 62.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 1.3 |
p-value: 0.9795% CI: [-4.07, 3.93]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Possible subscale scores are as follows: Adequacy components (higher score indicates a higher intake): Total vegetables (0-5) Greens and beans (0-5) Total fruits (0-5) Whole fruits (0-5) Whole grains (0-10) Dairy (0-10) Total protein foods (0-5) Seafood and plant proteins (0-5) Fatty acids (0-10) Moderation components (higher score indicates a lower intake) Sodium (0-10) Refined grains (0-10) Saturated fats (0-10) Added sugars (0-10)
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total fruits | 2.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Seafood and plant proteins | 3.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Whole grains | 5.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Fatty acids | 5.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Greens and beans | 3.4 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Sodium | 2.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Dairy | 6.4 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Refined grains | 6.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Whole fruits | 3.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Saturated fats | 6.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total protein | 4.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Added sugars | 8.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total vegetables | 4.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Added sugars | 8.5 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total vegetables | 4.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Greens and beans | 3.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total fruits | 2.6 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Whole fruits | 2.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Whole grains | 3.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Dairy | 5.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Total protein | 4.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Seafood and plant proteins | 2.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Fatty acids | 6.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Sodium | 3.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Refined grains | 5.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Saturated fats | 6.4 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
Comparison: Total vegetablesp-value: 0.8595% CI: [-0.61, 0.5]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Greens and beansp-value: 0.8295% CI: [-0.88, 0.7]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Total fruitsp-value: 0.4895% CI: [-0.43, 0.93]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Whole fruitsp-value: 0.0695% CI: [-0.04, 1.46]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Whole grainsp-value: 0.3495% CI: [-0.63, 1.84]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Dairyp-value: 0.0195% CI: [0.31, 2.62]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Total proteinp-value: 0.3995% CI: [-0.27, 0.69]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Seafood and plant proteinsp-value: 0.8195% CI: [-0.9, 0.7]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Fatty acidsp-value: 0.0495% CI: [-2.57, -0.04]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Sodiump-value: 0.2595% CI: [-1.86, 0.48]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Refined grainsp-value: 0.9195% CI: [-1.25, 1.4]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Saturated fatsp-value: 0.8995% CI: [-0.98, 1.13]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Added sugarsp-value: 0.5995% CI: [-0.55, 0.97]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Possible subscale scores are as follows: Adequacy components (higher score indicates a higher intake): Total vegetables (0-5) Greens and beans (0-5) Total fruits (0-5) Whole fruits (0-5) Whole grains (0-10) Dairy (0-10) Total protein foods (0-5) Seafood and plant proteins (0-5) Fatty acids (0-10) Moderation components (higher score indicates a lower intake) Sodium (0-10) Refined grains (0-10) Saturated fats (0-10) Added sugars (0-10)
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total fruits | 3.4 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Seafood and plant proteins | 3.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Whole grains | 4.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Fatty acids | 6.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Greens and beans | 3.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Sodium | 3.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Dairy | 5.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Refined grains | 6.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Whole fruits | 3.6 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Saturated fats | 6.6 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total protein | 4.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Added sugars | 8.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total vegetables | 4.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Added sugars | 8.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total vegetables | 4.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Greens and beans | 2.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total fruits | 3.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Whole fruits | 3.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Whole grains | 4.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Dairy | 6.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Total protein | 4.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.1 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Seafood and plant proteins | 3.0 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Fatty acids | 5.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.4 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Sodium | 3.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Refined grains | 6.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Diet Quality Subscores by Healthy Eating Index-2015 Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Saturated fats | 6.5 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.3 |
Comparison: Total vegetablesp-value: 0.795% CI: [-0.37, 0.55]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Greens and beansp-value: 0.8595% CI: [-0.84, 0.69]Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: 0.2995% CI: [-0.29, 0.98]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Whole fruitsp-value: 0.0795% CI: [-0.06, 1.26]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Whole grainsp-value: 0.9295% CI: [-1.16, 1.05]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Dairyp-value: 0.7295% CI: [-1.29, 0.89]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Total proteinp-value: 0.1595% CI: [-0.12, 0.74]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Seafood and plant proteinsp-value: 0.9295% CI: [-0.78, 0.71]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Fatty acidsp-value: 0.6795% CI: [-1.47, 0.94]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Sodiump-value: 0.6195% CI: [-1.45, 0.84]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Refined grainsp-value: 0.0695% CI: [-2.34, 0.04]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Saturated fatsp-value: 0.3295% CI: [-0.51, 1.57]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Added sugarsp-value: 0.6395% CI: [-0.56, 0.92]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Items on the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale are self-reported over the past two weeks. There are 14 items with 5 response categories (1=none of the time; 5=all of the time), summed to provide a single score ranging from 14-70. A higher score indicates higher perceived mental well-being.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 49.5 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.9 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 48.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.9 |
p-value: 0.0895% CI: [-0.22, 4.43]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Items on the 14-item Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale are self-reported over the past two weeks. There are 14 items with 5 response categories (1=none of the time; 5=all of the time), summed to provide a single score ranging from 14-70. A higher score indicates higher perceived mental well-being.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 48.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.8 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Mental Well-being Scores by Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 48.3 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.8 |
p-value: 0.0995% CI: [-0.32, 4.23]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Items on the 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale are self-reported in which each item is scored using a Likert Scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 8-40. A higher score indicates a stronger sense of community.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 29.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.5 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 29.4 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.5 |
p-value: 0.9595% CI: [-1.39, 1.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Items on the 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale are self-reported in which each item is scored using a Likert Scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores can range from 8-40. A higher score indicates a stronger sense of community.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 28.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.5 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Sense of Community by the Brief Sense of Community Scale Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 27.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.5 |
p-value: 0.0995% CI: [-0.17, 2.46]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the odds of experiencing household food insecurity at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food secure | 49 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food insecure | 74 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 20 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food secure | 48 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food insecure | 73 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 21 Participants |
p-value: 0.0495% CI: [0.09, 0.96]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the odds of experiencing household food insecurity immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food secure | 46 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food insecure | 88 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food secure | 35 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food insecure | 87 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Experiencing Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 20 Participants |
p-value: 0.0195% CI: [0.06, 0.7]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition will be scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
Population: Participants who were pregnant or breastfeeding were excluded given the changes in weight and body composition throughout these life stages.
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Medium/high malnutrition risk | 24 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 83 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 16 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Medium/high malnutrition risk | 19 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 86 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 19 Participants |
p-value: 0.2295% CI: [0.62, 7.97]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition will be scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
Population: Participants who were pregnant or breastfeeding (n=39) were excluded given the changes in weight and body composition throughout these life stages
| Arm | Measure | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Medium/high malnutrition risk | 26 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 87 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Medium/high malnutrition risk | 20 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 91 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Odds of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 13 Participants |
p-value: 0.23695% CI: [0.27, 7.23]Regression, Logistic
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of being at a medium or high risk of malnutrition (relative to being at low risk of malnutrition) by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition was scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
Population: Participants who were pregnant or breastfeeding (n=39) were excluded given the changes in weight and body composition throughout these life stages.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 83 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Medium malnutrition risk | 14 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | High malnutrition risk | 10 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 16 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 19 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 86 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | High malnutrition risk | 5 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Medium malnutrition risk | 14 Participants |
Comparison: Medium malnutrition riskp-value: 0.7495% CI: [0.31, 5.38]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: High malnutrition riskp-value: 0.195% CI: [0.73, 41.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of being at a medium or high risk of malnutrition (relative to being at low risk of malnutrition) by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool are self-reported and based on BMI (scored as 0= \>20, 1= 18.5-20, 2 = \<18.5) and percent of unplanned weight loss in the past 3-4 months (scored as 0 = \<5%, 1 = 5-10%, 2 = \>10%). Overall risk of malnutrition was scored as 0=low risk, 1= medium risk, and \>= 2= high risk.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
Population: Participants who were pregnant or breastfeeding (n=39) were excluded given the changes in weight and body composition throughout these life stages.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 87 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Medium malnutrition risk | 18 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | High malnutrition risk | 8 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 13 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Low malnutrition risk | 91 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | High malnutrition risk | 11 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Being at a Medium or High Risk of Malnutrition by Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Medium malnutrition risk | 9 Participants |
Comparison: Medium malnutrition riskp-value: 0.1595% CI: [0.68, 12.66]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: High malnutrition riskp-value: 0.8695% CI: [0.2, 7.13]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of experiencing marginal, moderate, or severe household food insecurity (relative to being food secure) at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Marginal food insecurity | 19 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Severe food insecurity | 17 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Moderate food insecurity | 38 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 20 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food secure | 49 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Missing | 21 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Food secure | 48 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Marginal food insecurity | 14 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Moderate food insecurity | 31 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Severe food insecurity | 28 Participants |
Comparison: Marginal food insecurityp-value: 0.195% CI: [0.06, 1.29]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Moderate food insecurityp-value: 0.5295% CI: [0.21, 2.21]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Severe food insecurityp-value: 0.0195% CI: [0.02, 0.56]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Difference between intervention and control groups in the risk of experiencing marginal, moderate, or severe household food insecurity (relative to being food secure) immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Items on the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module are self-reported in relation to experiences in the past month.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Marginal food insecurity | 25 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Severe food insecurity | 24 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Moderate food insecurity | 39 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 9 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food secure | 46 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Missing | 20 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Food secure | 35 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Marginal food insecurity | 24 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Moderate food insecurity | 35 Participants |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in the Risk of Experiencing Marginal, Moderate, or Severe Household Food Insecurity Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Severe food insecurity | 28 Participants |
p-value: 0.0195% CI: [0.03, 0.67]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Moderate food insecurityp-value: 0.3495% CI: [0.17, 1.82]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Severe food insecurityp-value: 0.0295% CI: [0.03, 0.76]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets
Self-reported amount of money spent at farmers' markets using coupons and own money
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
Population: Includes only participants who reported spending money at farmers' markets.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $1 - $5 | 17 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $11 - $19 | 26 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $6 - $10 | 25 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $20 or more | 14 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | Missing | 2 Participants |
| Control Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $20 or more | 14 Participants |
| Control Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | Missing | 3 Participants |
| Control Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $1 - $5 | 2 Participants |
| Control Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $6 - $10 | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Amount of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets | $11 - $19 | 25 Participants |
Other Pre-specified
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status community ladder consists of a self-reported visual analog scale, whereby respondents place themselves on a ladder rung according to their perceived social standing relative to others in their community. Responses can take a value from 1-10, with a higher score indicating higher perceived social status in relation to others' within ones' community.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 5.9 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 5.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
p-value: 0.995% CI: [-0.57, 0.5]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status community ladder consists of a self-reported visual analog scale, whereby respondents place themselves on a ladder rung according to their perceived social standing relative to others in their community. Responses can take a value from 1-10, with a higher score indicating higher perceived social status in relation to others' within ones' community.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 5.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Control Group | Difference Between Intervention and Control Groups in Mean Subjective Social Status by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Community Ladder Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | 5.7 score on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
p-value: 0.6495% CI: [-0.65, 0.4]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons)
Self-Reported Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets using own money (excluding coupons).
Time frame: Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
Population: Includes only participants who reported purchasing foods from farmers' markets
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Vegetables | 28 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Fruits | 12 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Meat | 13 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Dairy | 4 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Eggs | 4 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Cut herbs | 1 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Nuts | 0 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Other | 20 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Other | 6 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Vegetables | 31 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Eggs | 1 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Fruits | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Nuts | 0 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Meat | 3 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Cut herbs | 0 Participants |
| Control Group | Foods Purchased at Farmers' Markets Using Own Money (Excluding Coupons) | Dairy | 3 Participants |
Other Pre-specified
Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons)
Self-reported frequency of money spent at farmers' markets (excluding coupons) among participants who reported purchasing foods from farmers' markets. How often did you spend household money at a farmers' market? Do not include items you bought with coupons (if applicable).
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
Population: Includes only participants who reported purchasing foods from farmers' markets
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Never | 43 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Less than once per month | 21 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Once or twice per month | 36 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | One per week | 23 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | More than once per week | 4 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Missing | 2 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | More than once per week | 4 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Never | 6 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | One per week | 15 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Less than once per month | 12 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Missing | 1 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Money Spent at Farmers' Markets at Post-intervention (Excluding Coupons) | Once or twice per month | 22 Participants |
Other Pre-specified
Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets
Self-reported frequency of purchasing food in farmers' markets. How often did you buy food at a farmers' market (using coupons or money)?
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Never | 5 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Less than once per month | 6 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Once or twice per month | 38 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | One per week | 76 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | More than once per week | 9 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Missing | 9 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | More than once per week | 4 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Never | 60 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | One per week | 18 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Less than once per month | 11 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Missing | 22 Participants |
| Control Group | Frequency of Purchasing Food in Farmers' Markets | Once or twice per month | 27 Participants |
Other Pre-specified
Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance
Self-reported data on attendance to nutrition skill-building activities (Did you go to nutrition skill building activities offered by your community partner?)
Time frame: Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | Yes | 45 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | No | 81 Participants |
| FMNCP Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | Missing | 17 Participants |
| Control Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | Yes | 29 Participants |
| Control Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | No | 90 Participants |
| Control Group | Nutrition Skill-building Activity Attendance | Missing | 23 Participants |
Other Pre-specified
Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets
Number of coupons redeemed to purchase vegetables, fruit, meat and fish, eggs, dairy, cut herbs, and nuts.
Time frame: Assessed at post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Vegetables | 4718 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Fruits | 2125 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Meat and fish | 1348 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Eggs | 1225 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Dairy | 452 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Cut herbs | 57 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Nuts | 2 Coupons |
| FMNCP Group | Objective Data (From Coupons) on Foods Purchased Using Coupons at Farmers' Markets | Unmarked coupons | 2179 Coupons |
Other Pre-specified
Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks)
Population: Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 18-59 years | 59.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.2 |
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 60+ years | 61.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.8 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 18-59 years | 59.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.9 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | 60+ years | 62.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.9 |
Comparison: 18-59 yearsp-value: 0.9995% CI: [-4.76, 4.66]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: 60+ yearsp-value: 0.4395% CI: [-5.48, 12.8]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Adequacy and moderation components are each scored from 0-5, except for whole grains, dairy, and fatty acids, which are each scored from 0-10. For adequacy components, a higher score indicates a higher intake, whereas, for moderation components, a higher score indicates a lower intake.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
Population: Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported age.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Age 18-59 years | 61.6 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.4 |
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Age 60+ years | 62.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.5 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Age 18-59 years | 62.0 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Age Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Age 60+ years | 65.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.9 |
p-value: 0.6695% CI: [-5.65, 3.57]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Age 60+ yearsp-value: 0.495% CI: [-4.36, 10.93]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks)
Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex at 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks). Healthy Eating Index-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls.
Time frame: 16 weeks post-intervention (26-31 weeks)
Population: Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Males | 59.1 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.5 |
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Females | 59.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Males | 59.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.7 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex at 16 Weeks Post-intervention (26-31 Weeks) | Females | 60.3 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.9 |
Comparison: Malesp-value: 0.4395% CI: [-9.13, 21.63]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Femalesp-value: 0.6295% CI: [-3.23, 5.41]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified
Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks)
Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex immediately post-intervention (10-15 weeks). Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 scores are calculated from 24-hour dietary recalls. HEI-2015 total scores can range from 0-100, with a higher score indicating a higher diet quality. HEI-2015 total scores are calculated by summing subscores for adequacy components (total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids) and moderation components (refined grains, sodium, added sugars, saturated fats). Adequacy and moderation components are each scored from 0-5, except for whole grains, dairy, and fatty acids, which are each scored from 0-10. For adequacy components, a higher score indicates a higher intake, whereas, for moderation components, a higher score indicates a lower intake.
Time frame: post-intervention (10-15 weeks)
Population: Subgroup analysis for impact of intervention on overall diet quality (assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by self-reported sex.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Males | 58.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 11.7 |
| FMNCP Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Females | 62.2 score on a scale | Standard Error 15.2 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Males | 62.1 score on a scale | Standard Error 12.9 |
| Control Group | Subgroup Analysis for Impact of Intervention on Overall Diet Quality (Assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015) by Sex Immediately Post-intervention (10-15 Weeks) | Females | 62.8 score on a scale | Standard Error 14.8 |
p-value: 0.4395% CI: [-14.05, 5.92]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Femalesp-value: 0.8395% CI: [-3.75, 4.66]Mixed Models Analysis