A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals to improve food security and diet quality among food pantry clients.

BACKGROUND: Food pantry clients have high rates of food insecurity and greater risk for and prevalence of diet-related diseases. Many clients face time, resource, and physical constraints that limit their ability to prepare healthy meals using foods typically provided by pantries. We compared two novel approaches to alleviate those barriers and encourage healthier eating: meal kits, which bundle ingredients with a recipe on how to prepare a healthy meal, and nutritious no-prep meals, which can be eaten after thawing or microwaving. METHODS: Participants were adult pantry clients from a large food pantry in the Southern sector of Dallas, Texas. We conducted a repeated measures between-subjects study with 70 clients randomized to receive 14-days of meal kits (n = 35) or no-prep meals (n = 35). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and two-week follow-up on demographics, hedonic liking of study meals, perceived dietary quality, and food security. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine group and time effects, and group by time interactions. We also describe feasibility and satisfaction outcomes to inform future implementation. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants completed the study (94%). Participants were predominantly Hispanic or Latino(a) (63%) and African American or Black (31%) women (90%). There was a significant interaction on hedonic liking of study meals (ηp²=0.16, F(1,64) = 11.78, p < .001), such that participants that received meal kits had greater improvements in hedonic liking over time than participants in the no-prep group. We observed significant improvements in perceived dietary quality (ηp²=0.36, F(1,64) = 36.38, p < .001) and food security (ηp²=0.36, F(1,64) = 36.38, p < .001) across both groups over time, but no between group differences or significant interactions indicating one intervention was more effective than the other. Program satisfaction was high across both groups, but higher among the meal kit group (ηp²=0.09, F(1,64) = 6.28, p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals may be desirable nutrition intervention strategies for pantry clients and have potential to increase food security and perceived dietary quality in the short-term. Our findings are limited by a small sample and short follow-up. Future studies should continue to test both interventions, and include longer follow-up, objective measures of dietary quality, and relevant clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on 25/10/2022 on ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT05593510.

Clinical performance and health equity implications of the American Diabetes Association's 2023 screening recommendation for prediabetes and diabetes.

Introduction: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) starting at age 35, or younger than 35 years among adults with overweight or obesity and other risk factors. Diabetes risk differs by sex, race, and ethnicity, but performance of the recommendation in these sociodemographic subgroups is unknown. Methods: Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2015-March 2020) were analyzed from 5,287 nonpregnant US adults without diagnosed diabetes. Screening eligibility was based on age, measured body mass index, and the presence of diabetes risk factors. Dysglycemia was defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100mg/dL (≥5.6 mmol/L) or haemoglobin A1c ≥5.7% (≥39mmol/mol). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the ADA screening criteria were examined by sex, race, and ethnicity. Results: An estimated 83.1% (95% CI=81.2-84.7) of US adults were eligible for screening according to the 2023 ADA recommendation. Overall, ADA's screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity [95.0% (95% CI=92.7-96.6)] and low specificity [27.1% (95% CI=24.5-29.9)], which did not differ by race or ethnicity. Sensitivity was higher among women [97.8% (95% CI=96.6-98.6)] than men [92.4% (95% CI=88.3-95.1)]. Racial and ethnic differences in sensitivity and specificity among men were statistically significant (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). Among women, guideline performance did not differ by race and ethnicity. Discussion: The ADA screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity for all groups and was marginally higher in women than men. Racial and ethnic differences in guideline performance among men were small and unlikely to have a significant impact on health equity. Future research could examine adoption of this recommendation in practice and examine its effects on treatment and clinical outcomes by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes in a National Network of Federally Qualified Health Centers: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and diabetes among adults aged 35-70 years with overweight or obesity. Studying dysglycemia screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that serve vulnerable patient populations is needed to understand health equity implications of this recommendation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate screening practices among FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analyzing electronic health records from a national network of 282 FQHC sites. PARTICIPANTS: We included 183,329 patients without prior evidence of prediabetes or diabetes, who had ≥ 1 office visit from 2018-2020. MAIN MEASURES: Screening eligibility was based on age and measured body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome, screening completion, was ascertained using hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose results from 2018-2020. KEY RESULTS: Among 89,543 patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation, 53,263 (59.5%) were screened. Those who completed screening had higher BMI values than patients who did not (33.0 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs. 31.9 ± 6.2 kg/m2, p < 0.001). Adults aged 50-64 years had greater odds of screening completion relative to younger patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10-1.17). Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as those without health insurance, were more likely to complete screening than White patients and insured patients, respectively. Clinical risk factors for diabetes were also associated with dysglycemia screening. Among patients who completed screening, 23,588 (44.3%) had values consistent with prediabetes or diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation were screened. Screening completion was higher among middle-aged patients, those with greater BMI values, as well as vulnerable groups with a high risk of developing diabetes. Future research should examine adoption of the 2021 USPSTF screening recommendation and its impact on health equity.

Predicting hospital readmission in Medicaid patients with diabetes using administrative and claims data.

OBJECTIVES: Readmission is common and costly for hospitalized Medicaid patients with diabetes. We aimed to develop a model predicting risk of 30-day readmission in Medicaid patients with diabetes hospitalized for any cause. STUDY DESIGN: Using 2016-2019 Medicaid claims from 7 US states, we identified patients who (1) had a diagnosis of diabetes or were prescribed any diabetes drug, (2) were hospitalized for any cause, and (3) were discharged to home or to a nonhospice facility. For each encounter, we assessed whether the patient was readmitted within 30 days of discharge. METHODS: Applying least absolute shrinkage and selection operator variable selection, we included demographic data and claims history in a logistic regression model to predict 30-day readmission. We evaluated model fit graphically and measured predictive accuracy by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Among 69,640 eligible patients, there were 129,170 hospitalizations, of which 29,410 (22.8%) were 30-day readmissions. The final model included age, sex, age-sex interaction, past diagnoses, US state of admission, number of admissions in the preceding year, index admission type, index admission diagnosis, discharge status, length of stay, and length of stay-sex interaction. The observed vs predicted plot showed good fit. The estimated AUROC of 0.761 was robust in analyses that assessed sensitivity to a range of model assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our model has moderate power for identifying hospitalized Medicaid patients with diabetes who are at high risk of readmission. It is a template for identifying patients at risk of readmission and for adjusting comparisons of 30-day readmission rates among sites or over time.