Abstract Objectives In this review we sought to synthesize qualitative studies incorporating perspectives of key players in nutrition incentive (NI) and produce prescription (PPR) programs to identify common qualitative themes. Background Inadequate fruit and vegetable intake contributes to diet-related diseases, especially among low-income populations. Improved access is provided by NI and PPR programs, yet qualitative insights remain underexplored, limiting understanding of program effectiveness and impact. Methods Qualitative studies focusing on NI and PPR programs from the past 10 years were found through key search terms on several databases. Published articles were screened by title and abstract, and then the full texts were reviewed for inclusion requirements (studies that involved qualitative findings from NI/PPR programs that were conducted in the United States). Researchers extracted data, identified themes, and categorized findings into benefits, barriers, and recommendations using an iterative coding process, ensuring rigor by including themes supported by at least 5 studies. Results A total of 49 articles were included in this review, representing studies conducted across United States regions; 29 of the reported studies focused on PPR programs, 19 focused on NI programs, and 1 focused on both types of programs. Overall, there were 28 categories that created 3 overarching themes relating to NI and PPR programs: benefits and facilitators, barriers and challenges, and key recommendations. Conclusions This scoping review highlights key facilitators, challenges, and opportunities for improving NI and PPR programs. The findings suggest that strong partnerships, resource alignment, and tailored support for stakeholders are essential for program success. Quantitative measures assessing implementation factors should be explored in future research in tandem with continued qualitative data collection to provide important context. By addressing these areas, NI and PPR programs can expand their impact and effectiveness in improving food access and nutrition for individuals with limited income.
Parks et al. (Fri,) studied this question.