• Successful produce prescription programs (PPR) align with clinic workflow. • A designated clinic staff member is ideal to manage all aspects of a PPR. • Health care providers who work with PPRs are largely satisfied with the program. • Health care providers who work with PPRs desire sustainable program expansion.

Food insecurity, or lack of consistent access to enough food, is associated with low intakes of fruits and vegetables (FVs) and higher risk of chronic diseases and disproportionately affects populations with low income. Financial incentives for FVs are supported by the 2018 Farm Bill and United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and aim to increase dietary quality and food security among households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and with low income. Currently, there is no shared evaluation model for the hundreds of financial incentive projects across the U.S. Despite the fact that a majority of these projects are federally funded and united as a cohort of grantees through GusNIP, it is unclear which models and attributes have the greatest public health impact. We explore the evaluation of financial incentives in the U.S. to demonstrate the need for shared measurement in the future. We describe the process of the GusNIP NTAE, a federally supported initiative, to identify and develop shared measurement to be able to determine the potential impact of financial incentives in the U.S. This commentary discusses the rationale, considerations, and next steps for establishing shared evaluation measures for financial incentives for FVs, to accelerate our understanding of impact, and support evidence-based policymaking.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related complications than non-AI/AN adults. As healthy eating is a cornerstone of diabetes self-management, nutrition education plays an important role in diabetes self-management education. To understand stakeholder perspectives on facilitators and barriers to healthy eating for AI/AN adults with T2D in order to inform the cultural adaptation of an existing diabetes nutrition education curriculum. Individual interviews were conducted with 9 national content experts in diabetes nutrition education (e.g. registered dietitians, diabetes educators, experts on AI/AN food insecurity) and 10 community-based key informants, including tribal health administrators, nutrition/diabetes educators, Native elders, and tribal leaders. Four focus groups were conducted with AI/AN adults with T2D (n = 29) and 4 focus groups were conducted with their family members (n = 22). Focus groups and community-based key informant interviews were conducted at 4 urban and reservation sites in the USA. Focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We employed the constant comparison method for data analysis and used Atlas.ti (Mac version 8.0) to digitalize the analytic process. Three key themes emerged. First, a diabetes nutrition education program for AI/ANs should accommodate diversity across AI/AN communities. Second, it is important to build on AI/AN strengths and facilitators to healthy eating (e.g. strong community and family support systems, traditional foods, and food acquisition and preparation practices). Third, it is important to address barriers to healthy eating (e.g. food insecurity, challenges to preparation of home-cooked meals, excessive access to processed and fast food, competing priorities and stressors, loss of access to traditional foods, and traditional food-acquisition practices and preparation) and provide resources and strategies for mitigating these barriers. Findings were used to inform the cultural adaptation of a nutrition education program for AI/AN adults with T2D.

Increased fruit and vegetable (FV) intake is associated with decreased risk of nutrition-related chronic diseases. Sociodemographic disparities in FV intake indicate the need for strategies that promote equitable access to FVs. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) supports state and local programs that offer nutrition incentives (NIs) that subsidize purchase of FVs for people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While a growing body of research indicates NIs are effective, the pathways through which GusNIP achieves its results have not been adequately described. We used an equity-focused, participatory process to develop a retrospective Theory of Change (TOC) to address this gap. We reviewed key program documents; conducted a targeted NI literature review; and engaged GusNIP partners, practitioners, and participants through interviews, workshops, and focus groups in TOC development. The resulting TOC describes how GusNIP achieves its long-term outcomes of increased participant FV purchases and intake and food security and community economic benefits. GusNIP provides NIs and promotes their use, helps local food retailers develop the capacity to sell FVs and accept NIs in accessible and welcoming venues, and supports local farmers to supply FVs to food retailers. The TOC is a framework for understanding how GusNIP works and a tool for improving and expanding the program.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore patient perspectives on socioeconomic barriers related to diabetes self-management and interventions to address these barriers. Methods: Focus groups (n = 8) were conducted with a diverse sample of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D; n = 53). Researchers used a semistructured moderator guide; focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Researchers employed the constant comparison method for qualitative content analysis and utilized Atlas.ti (Version 8.1.1) to digitalize the analytic process. Results: Findings revealed 3 primary themes: (1) Existing food and nutrition resources are insufficient to support healthy eating for diabetes; (2) healthy eating is critical for diabetes management, but socioeconomic circumstances make doing so challenging; and (3) participants supported several broad categories of preferred intervention strategies. First, they endorsed lifestyle intervention informed by socioeconomic status (SES; eg, focusing on food resource management, sensitive health coaching and nutritional counseling). Next, they expressed enthusiasm for group-based learning opportunities, such as cooking classes and support groups with similar SES peers. Finally, they suggested healthy food access resources. Conclusions: Participant suggestions should be incorporated into intervention development. Ultimately, these interventional strategies should be tested and refined to help improve health for individuals with type 2 diabetes.