In this study, we seek to illuminate: (1) the ways farm service providers and mental health professionals understand the drivers of farm stress, (2) the strategies, challenges, and opportunities farm service providers and mental health professionals identify for supporting the mental health needs of farm families, and; (3) opportunities for future research and outreach to improve the mental health of farmers in the U.S. Midwest region. We obtained qualitative data from a series of semi-structured key informant interviews with 19 subject matter experts, using content analysis to identify themes across four domains: main challenges, unique impacts by subpopulation, coping strategies, and interventions and recommendations. The key informants we interviewed identified a variety of acute and chronic stressors, including several that are structural, rather than individual and interpersonal, and which lie outside of the control of farmers themselves. They also highlighted diversity within farm populations by socio-demographic and farm characteristics as well as positive and negative coping strategies, with negative being more common. For interventions and recommendations, they stressed the importance of education on mental health, improving access to care, and addressing root causes of stress. While farmer stress is well-documented, less is known about the perspectives of farm service professionals and mental health providers who care for them. The insights from this study add important information on how to best support the immediate and long-term mental health needs of farmers and farm families in the U.S. Midwest and beyond.

Childhood obesity persists in the United States and is associated with serious health problems. Higher rates of obesity among children from disadvantaged households may be, in part, attributable to disparities in access to healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. Community supported agriculture can improve access to and consumption of fresh produce, but the upfront payment structure, logistical barriers, and unfamiliarity with produce items may inhibit participation by low-income families. The aim of this project is to assess the impact of subsidized, or “cost-offset,” community supported agriculture participation coupled with tailored nutrition education for low-income families with children. The Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids community-based, randomized intervention trial will build on formative and longitudinal research to examine the impact of cost-offset community supported agriculture on diet and other health behaviors as well as the economic impacts on local economies. The intervention will involve reduced-price community supported agriculture shares which can be paid for on a weekly basis, nine skill-based and seasonally-tailored healthy eating classes, and the provision of basic kitchen tools. Low income families with at least one child aged 2–12 years will be recruited to join existing community supported agriculture programs in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington. In each program, families will be randomized 1:1 to intervention or delayed intervention groups. Data will be collected at baseline, and in the fall and spring for 3 years. The primary outcomes are children’s intake of fruits and vegetables and foods high in sugar and/or (solid) fat, as well as diet quality; secondary outcomes include physical, behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental variables. Cost-effectiveness and economic impact at the farm and community levels also will be assessed. This integrated project will provide important information and contribute to the evidence base regarding the use of local agricultural interventions to improve children’s dietary behaviors and weight maintenance. Findings also will inform the development of a toolkit for farmers and education modules related to local food system innovations for undergraduate and graduate students. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02770196 . Registered 5 April 2016.

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a widely-used approach for farmers to sell directly to consumers. We used the product, place, price, and promotion (4P) marketing mix framework to examine characteristics that help farms offering CSA maintain member satisfaction and thus competitiveness. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 CSA members and 24 CSA farmers in four states. CSA members additionally completed a modified choice experiment. Qualitative data were coded iteratively, and choice experiment data were summarized and compared across scenarios. CSA members and farmers were motivated by a range of personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives. Members favored high-quality staple vegetables (e.g., lettuce, green beans), ideally produced organically. Trust and a sense of personal connection with the farmer comprised part of the “value added” of CSA participation. Time and location of share pick-up were very important; thus, farmers tried to offer convenient sites or an enriched pick-up experience. Small changes in price appeared unlikely to impact participation among current members. Social networks and word-of-mouth were powerful for marketing, but may limit the ability to reach diverse populations. Future research should examine the ability of CSAs to meet the needs of those who do not currently participate.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, farmers and farm workers have been deemed essential workers across the world. Yet, despite working in one of the most dangerous occupations, and despite being especially vulnerable to the virus (due to existing health risk factors and risk of infection stemming from difficulties adopting control measures), many farmers and farm workers in the United States have long lacked essential resources to ensure they can meet their health needs: affordable and accessible health insurance and health care. In this commentary, we draw on our own research focused on farm families and collective experiences to discuss three main challenges farm families have faced meeting their health needs: reliance on off-farm work for health insurance coverage, the need to forecast income when purchasing a plan on the health insurance marketplace, and barriers to health care in rural areas. As we discuss these challenges, we highlight the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic is likely exacerbating these pressures. Recognizing that major crises in the past have led to major shifts in economic, social, and political systems, the disruptions brought on by COVID-19 could be leveraged to work toward increasing access to affordable and adequate health insurance and health care. As such, we conclude our commentary by outlining policy reforms and research efforts that are needed to ensure that those working in the farm sector have access to essential resources to preserve their health and safety.

Amid concerns of inadequate medical supplies and staffing anticipated from a surge in COVID-19 cases, many health care systems across the United States (U.S.) began shutting down non-essential patient services in March 2020. These sudden shifts bring up questions about the long-term effects of COVID-19 on already fragile rural health care systems and the ability of rural populations, including farmers and farm workers, to meet their health care needs. To provide alternative and safe access to health care, the Federal government relaxed telehealth regulations, which effectively removed some of the largest regulatory barriers that had limited the adoption of telehealth in the U.S. In this commentary, we draw on the example of the Marshfield Clinic Health System (MCHS), a large rural health care system in Wisconsin and provide an early assessment of how it adjusted its telehealth services during the early months of COVID-19. While the long-term effects of the pandemic on rural health care systems will not be known for some time, the example of MCHS points to the importance of on-going and sustained investments to support the resilience of health care systems and their ability to weather crises. With early evidence that MCHS patients and practitioners are interested in continuing to use telehealth post-COVID-19, we conclude our commentary by offering three recommendations to remove hurdles and improve quality of telehealth care.