Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial

Abstract Background Produce prescriptions (PRx) may improve diet quality and food security. However, there is little data to inform PRx dose recommendations. Objective To identify how PRx dose affects benefit redemption, food security, and fruit/vegetable (FV) intake. Design Three-arm, prospective randomized community trial. Participants Adult clients of a community-based nonprofit social service provider. Interventions Monthly electronic distribution of $40, $80, or $110 (equivalent to 10%, 20%, or 30% of the FV component of the USDA Thrifty Food Plan) for 6 months, redeemable at major grocery stores only for FV. Main Measures Primary (benefit redemption) and secondary (food security and FV intake) outcomes were assessed at 3 months (primary endpoint) and 6 months. Key Results Study participants ( n = 242) were randomized to $40 ( n = 81), $80 ( n = 80), or $110 ( n = 81) PRx arms. Mean (SD) age was 35.16 (9.45) years and 235 (97.1%) self-identified as female and 200 (82.6%) as Hispanic. Overall, there appeared to be a dose-response relationship with progressively greater benefit redemption rate, food security, and FV consumption as PRx dose increased. Compared with $40, the $110 PRx dose significantly improved food insecurity ( p = 0.01) and FV intake ( p = 0.03) at 3 months, and the benefit redemption rate ( p = 0.04) at 6 months. At 3 months, the benefit redemption rate was 60.2% (95%CI 51.9–68.6%) $40 group, 67.6% (95%CI 59.9–75.3%) $80 group, and 70.4% (95%CI 63.0–77.9%) $110 group. Food insecurity was reported for 74.3% (95%CI 62.0–86.6%) $40 group, 66.2% (95%CI 50.1–82.2%) $80 group, and 47.4% (95%CI 31.6–63.1%) $110 group. Mean FV consumption in cups/day was 2.51 (95%CI 2.31–2.72) $40 group, 2.66 (95%CI 2.38–2.95) $80 group, and 2.89 (95%CI 2.61–3.17) $110 group. Conclusions Higher PRx dose increased benefit redemption, food security, and FV consumption, especially when comparing the $110 and $40 doses. Dose is an important design element to improve PRx redemption levels and potentially PRx-related health outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10773-0
Primary Topic
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial

Ronli Levi, Ximena Perez-Velazco, Marlena Kuhn, Ari Goldberg et al.
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
article

Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial

Ronli Levi, Ximena Perez-Velazco, Marlena Kuhn, Ari Goldberg, Nader Mehri, Hilary K. Seligman, Seth A. Berkowitz, Ryan M. Kane
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Produce prescriptions (PRx) may improve diet quality and food security. However, there is little data to inform PRx dose recommendations. Objective To identify how PRx dose affects benefit redemption, food security, and fruit/vegetable (FV) intake. Design Three-arm, prospective randomized community trial. Participants Adult clients of a community-based nonprofit social service provider. Interventions Monthly electronic distribution of $40, $80, or $110 (equivalent to 10%, 20%, or 30% of the FV component of the USDA Thrifty Food Plan) for 6 months, redeemable at major grocery stores only for FV. Main Measures Primary (benefit redemption) and secondary (food security and FV intake) outcomes were assessed at 3 months (primary endpoint) and 6 months. Key Results Study participants ( n = 242) were randomized to $40 ( n = 81), $80 ( n = 80), or $110 ( n = 81) PRx arms. Mean (SD) age was 35.16 (9.45) years and 235 (97.1%) self-identified as female and 200 (82.6%) as Hispanic. Overall, there appeared to be a dose-response relationship with progressively greater benefit redemption rate, food security, and FV consumption as PRx dose increased. Compared with $40, the $110 PRx dose significantly improved food insecurity ( p = 0.01) and FV intake ( p = 0.03) at 3 months, and the benefit redemption rate ( p = 0.04) at 6 months. At 3 months, the benefit redemption rate was 60.2% (95%CI 51.9–68.6%) $40 group, 67.6% (95%CI 59.9–75.3%) $80 group, and 70.4% (95%CI 63.0–77.9%) $110 group. Food insecurity was reported for 74.3% (95%CI 62.0–86.6%) $40 group, 66.2% (95%CI 50.1–82.2%) $80 group, and 47.4% (95%CI 31.6–63.1%) $110 group. Mean FV consumption in cups/day was 2.51 (95%CI 2.31–2.72) $40 group, 2.66 (95%CI 2.38–2.95) $80 group, and 2.89 (95%CI 2.61–3.17) $110 group. Conclusions Higher PRx dose increased benefit redemption, food security, and FV consumption, especially when comparing the $110 and $40 doses. Dose is an important design element to improve PRx redemption levels and potentially PRx-related health outcomes.

Journal of General Internal Medicine
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Tufts University (US), Duke University (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Knoxville College (US), Clinical Research Institute (US), Communities In Schools of Orange County (US), Research for Action (US), University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.