Identifying Food Pantry Client and Staff Preferences for Nutritious no Prep Ready-to-eat Meals Versus Ingredient Bundles as an Effort to Increase Food Security, Improve Nutrition, and Promote Well-being
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 85
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Hedonic Liking of Study Foods
Study Overview
Brief Summary
The specific aims of this pilot study are: Aim 1) To identify whether no prep ready to eat meals (intervention) or ingredient bundles (control) have higher client acceptability, liking, satisfaction, and perceived diet quality ratings. Aim 2) To identify whether no prep ready to eat meals (intervention) or ingredient bundles (control) have higher feasibility ratings with food pantry staff. Exploratory Aim) To identify whether no prep ready to meals (intervention) or ingredient bundles (control) lead to greater improvements in food security, perceived diet quality, and fruit and vegetable consumption.
Detailed Description
To test the first hypothesis, we will use a randomized repeated measures between-subjects design with half of the participants randomized to receive 14-days of no prep ready-to-eat meals (intervention, n=35) and half of the participants randomized to receive 14-days of ingredient bundles (control, n=35). To test the second hypothesis, we will use a mixed-methods approach with food pantry staff (N=15), including questionnaires with fixed and open-ended items on feasibility and satisfaction of each distribution strategy followed by 30-minute semi-structured 1-1 interviews conducted by UT Southwestern study staff.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Factorial
- Primary Purpose
- Prevention
- Masking
- None
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Inclusion Criteria
- •18 years of age or older;
- •ability to read, write, and speak English or Spanish;
- •ability to provide informed consent;
- •current or new pantry user at our community partner;
- •willing to participate;
- •no dietary restrictions, allergies, or sensitivities that would put the participant at-risk of harm from consuming study foods.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Under 18 years of age;
- •inability to read, write, and speak English or Spanish;
- •unable to provide informed consent;
- •not a pantry user at our community partner or uninterested in becoming a pantry user;
- •not wanting to participate;
- •dietary restrictions, allergies, or sensitivities that would put the participant at-risk of harm from consuming study foods.
Arms & Interventions
No prep ready-to-eat meals
Intervention: No prep ready-to-eat meals (Behavioral)
Ingredient bundles (e.g. meal kits)
Intervention: Ingredient bundles (e.g. meal kits) (Behavioral)
Pantry Staff Group
They participate in qualitative interviews only. No demographic or other identifiable information from them. They do not receive an intervention. No Intervention Group.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Hedonic Liking of Study Foods
Time Frame: 14-days
Liking of study foods will be measured by showing the name and picture of the meal or ingredient bundle and asking participants to respond to a hedonic 9-point bipolar scale (this scale does not have an official name or title, therefore, 9-point hedonic liking scale can be considered the unabbreviated scale name). The scale has four measures of liking (6-9) and four measures of dislike (1-4) and a neutral "neither like nor dislike" (5). A higher score = more liking of the food. The average of all hedonic liking ratings for each meal was taken to create a hedonic liking score across meals.
Satisfaction of Study Foods
Time Frame: 14-days
Satisfaction items were adapted from previously validated food pantry client satisfaction surveys (e.g., "How satisfied are you with the amount/variety/frequency of food that you and others in your household receive at this food pantry?") (Dunmire M. Level of satisfaction among food pantry clients, staff/volunteers, and directors and its association with client choice in food pantry layouts. South Dakota State University; 2019.). Response options were "Strongly agree" "Agree" "Disagree" and "Strongly disagree". The items were summed to create an Intervention Satisfaction variable with the lowest possible score of 4 if all responses were "Strongly disagree" and the highest possible score of 20 if all responses were "Strongly agree."
Secondary Outcomes
- Perceived Diet Quality(14-days)
Investigators
Kelseanna Hollis-Hansen
Assistant Professor
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center