Randomized trial evaluates dose-dependent farmers' market subsidies on diet quality and food security in lower-income families, indicating potential paths for nutrition policy optimization.
BackgroundThe British Columbia Farmers' Market Nutrition Coupon Program (FMNCP) provides lower-income households with coupons to purchase healthy foods at farmers' markets.AimThis pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) will examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two higher subsidies for healthy food, compared to the usual FMNCP healthy food subsidy, on the diet quality (primary outcome), food insecurity, and other health-related outcomes of 276 parent-child dyads with lower incomes.MethodsIn this single-blind, three-arm, parallel-group pragmatic RCT, 276 parent-child dyads in lower-income households will be randomized to receive the usual FMNCP healthy food subsidy ($27/week) or a subsidy that is two ($54/week) or three times ($81/week) higher. Participants will receive 16 weeks of coupons that can be redeemed for up to 20 weeks. Outcomes will be assessed in one parent (18-64 years) and child (6-17 years) from each household pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. Dietary intake will be collected via two 24-h dietary recalls at each time point to calculate diet quality using the Healthy Eating Food Index-2019. Food insecurity and other health-related outcomes will be assessed using validated self-reported instruments. Mixed effects regression will assess the effects of the interventions, relative to the usual subsidy, on outcomes in parents and children. A full incremental analysis will quantify the cost-effectiveness ratios of the healthy food subsidies.SummaryThis dose-response RCT will show how the diet quality, food insecurity, and other health-related outcomes of parents and children vary according to subsidy amount.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06992947).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olstad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: