Cost analysis and cost effectiveness of a subsidized community supported agriculture intervention for low-income families.

BACKGROUND: The food system has a dynamic influence on disparities in food security and diet-related chronic disease. Community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, in which households receive weekly shares of produce from a local farmer during the growing season, have been examined as a possible food systems-based approach for improving diet and health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost of implementing and participating in a multi-component subsidized community supported agriculture intervention and calculate cost-effectiveness based on diet and food security impacts. METHODS: Using data from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) randomized controlled trial in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington (n = 305; 2016-2018), we estimated programmatic and participant costs and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for caregivers' daily fruit and vegetable (FV) intake, skin carotenoids, and household food security from program and societal perspectives. RESULTS: F3HK cost $2,439 per household annually ($1,884 in implementation-related expenses and $555 in participant-incurred costs). ICERs ranged from $1,507 to $2,439 per cup increase in caregiver's FV intake (depending on perspective, setting, and inclusion of juice); from $502 to $739 per one thousand unit increase in skin carotenoid score; and from $2,271 to $3,137 per household shifted out of food insecurity. CONCLUSIONS: Given the known public health, healthcare, and economic consequences of insufficient FV intake and living in a food insecure household, the costs incurred to support these positive shifts in individual- and household-level outcomes via a F3HK-like intervention may be deemed by stakeholders as a reasonable investment. This work helps to advance a critical body of literature on the cost-effectiveness of subsidized CSAs and other economic and food system interventions for the sake of evidence-based allocation of public health resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02770196. Registered 5 April 2016. Retrospectively registered. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT02770196 .

Making community-supported agriculture accessible to low-income families: findings from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids process evaluation.

A randomized trial of Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) was initiated across 4 states and 12 farms to test whether cost-offset community-supported agriculture (CO-CSA) could improve diet quality among children in low-income families. Intervention households purchased a 50% subsidized share of local produce and were invited to nine complimentary nutrition classes. The purpose of this study was to assess F3HK reach, dose, and fidelity via a mixed methods process evaluation. Screening and enrollment records indicated reach; study records and postlesson educator surveys tracked dose delivered; CSA pickup logs, lesson sign-in sheets, postseason participant surveys, and postlesson caregiver surveys assessed dose received; and coordinator audits and educator surveys tracked fidelity. Educator interviews contextualized findings. The results of this study were as follows. Reach: enrolled caregivers (n = 305) were older (p = .005) than eligible nonenrollees (n = 243) and more likely to be female (p < .001). Dose: mean CSA season was 21 weeks (interquartile range [IQR]: 19-23). Median CSA pickup was 88% of the weeks (IQR: 40-100). All sites offered each class at least once. Most adults (77%) and children (54%) attended at least one class; few attended all. Eighty-two percent of caregivers indicated that their household consumed most or all produce. Median lesson activity ratings were 5/5 ("very useful"). Fidelity: CSA locations functioned with integrity to project standards. Educators taught 92% of activities but frequently modified lesson order. This study demonstrates the feasibility of pairing a CO-CSA intervention with nutrition education across geographically dispersed sites. Greater integration of intervention elements and clearer allowance for site-level modifications, particularly for educational elements, may improve intervention dose and, ultimately, impact.