» Articles » PMID: 37571289

How the Gus Schumacher Produce Prescription Program Works: An Adaptation of a Nutrition Incentive Theory of Change

Overview
Journal Nutrients
Date 2023 Aug 12
PMID 37571289
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The United States Department of Agriculture's Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) supports nutrition incentive (NI) and produce prescription programs (PPRs). PPRs allow healthcare providers to "prescribe" fruits and vegetables (FVs) to patients experiencing low income and/or chronic disease(s) and who screen positive for food insecurity. We developed a Theory of Change (TOC) that summarizes how and why PPRs work, identifies what the programs hope to achieve, and elucidates the causal pathways necessary to achieve their goals. We created the PPR TOC through an iterative, participatory process that adapted our previously developed GusNIP NI TOC. The participatory process involved food and nutrition security experts, healthcare providers, PPR implementors, and PPR evaluators reviewing the existing NI TOC and suggesting modifications to accurately reflect PPRs. The resulting TOC describes the mechanisms, assumptions, rationale, and underpinnings that lead to successful and equitable outcomes. Modifications of the NI TOC centered around equity and focused on inclusion of healthcare as an additional partner and the importance of health and healthcare utilization as outcomes. The TOC describes how the GusNIP PPR program reaches its goals. This understanding will be useful for PPR developers, implementers, funders, and evaluators for describing the pathways, assumptions, and foundations of successful PPRs.

Citing Articles

Implementing Food as Medicine During COVID-19: Produce Prescriptions and Integrative Group Medical Visits in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Thompson-Lastad A, Ruvalcaba D, Chen W, Rodriguez Espinosa P, Chiu D, Xiao L Glob Adv Integr Med Health. 2025; 14:27536130251316535.

PMID: 39877693 PMC: 11773540. DOI: 10.1177/27536130251316535.

References
1.
Nugent N, Byker Shanks C, Seligman H, Fricke H, Parks C, Stotz S . Accelerating Evaluation of Financial Incentives for Fruits and Vegetables: A Case for Shared Measures. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(22). PMC: 8621044. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182212140. View

2.
Li M, Fan Y, Zhang X, Hou W, Tang Z . Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(11):e005497. PMC: 4225228. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005497. View

3.
Mozaffarian D, Rogoff K, Ludwig D . The real cost of food: can taxes and subsidies improve public health?. JAMA. 2014; 312(9):889-90. PMC: 6129188. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.8232. View

4.
French S, Jeffery R, Story M, Breitlow K, BAXTER J, Hannan P . Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS Study. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91(1):112-7. PMC: 1446491. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.91.1.112. View

5.
De Marchis E, Torres J, Benesch T, Fichtenberg C, Allen I, Whitaker E . Interventions Addressing Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review. Ann Fam Med. 2019; 17(5):436-447. PMC: 7032918. DOI: 10.1370/afm.2412. View