Cited by 144Food Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorOrganic Food and Agriculture

A farmers' market at a federally qualified health center improves fruit and vegetable intake among low-income diabetics

Open access
Freedman, Darcy A., Choi, Seul Ki, Hurley, Thomas, Anadu, Edith, Hébert, James R.·2013·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Objective A 22-week federally qualified health center (FQHC)-based farmers' market (FM) and personal financial incentive intervention designed to improve access to and consumption of fruits and vegetables (FVs) among low-income diabetics in rural South Carolina was evaluated. Methods A mixed methods, one-group, repeated-measures design was used. Data were collected in 2011 before (May/June), during (August), and after (November) the intervention with 41 diabetes patients from the FQHC. FV consumption was assessed using a validated National Cancer Institute FV screener modified to include FV sold at the FM. Sales receipts were recorded for all FM transactions. A mixed-model, repeated measures analysis of variance was used to assess intervention effects on FV consumption. Predictors of changes in FV consumption were examined using logistic regression. Results A marginally significant (p=0.07) average increase of 1.6 servings of total FV consumption per day occurred. The odds of achieving significant improvements in FV consumption increased for diabetics using financial incentives for payment at the FM (OR: 38.8, 95% CI: 3.4-449.6) and for those frequenting the FM more often (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1-4.0). Conclusions Results reveal a dose-response relationship between the intervention and FV improvements and emphasize the importance of addressing economic barriers to food access.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.018

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61).

    “Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61).”

    From Interventions Addressing Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Methods and Results describe a voucher-supported farmers’ market intervention that measured fruit and vegetable intake, so this paper fits the category of studies named in the claim. But it reports a marginally significant increase of 1.6 servings per day in one diabetic cohort, not mixed results across studies or the pooled estimate of −0.03 (95% CI −0.66 to 0.61). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. George DR Kraschnewski JL Rovniak LS 2011 Public health potential of farmers’ markets on medical center campuses: A case study Am J Public Health 101 2226 2232 22021298 PMC3222449

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freedman, D. A., Choi, S. K., Hurley, T., Anadu, E., & Hébert, J. R.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Freedman, Darcy A.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
56
Issue
5
Pages
288-292
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087761903
Cited by
144
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5
FWCI
23.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (3U48DP001936-01W1)
  • National Cancer Institute (K05 CA136975)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
Keywords
farmers' markets, fruit and vegetable intake, diabetes mellitus, low-income populations, financial incentives, food access, federally qualified health centers, rural health, dose-response relationship, South Carolina
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Community Health Centers, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Fruit, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Poverty, Rural Population, Socioeconomic Factors, South Carolina, Vegetables

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review