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.

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 twoweek 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.

Interpretation of ambiguous TP53 test results: Mosaicism, clonal hematopoiesis, and variants of uncertain significance.

The increased use of next-generation sequencing has led to the detection of pathogenic TP53 variants in the germline setting in patients without a personal or family history consistent with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). These variants can represent low-penetrance LFS, mosaic LFS, or clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Additionally, TP53 variants of uncertain significance can be detected in patients with a history suspicious for LFS. The interpretation of the significance of these variants can be challenging but is crucial for an accurate diagnosis and appropriate medical management. This retrospective case review provides illustrative examples of the interpretation of challenging TP53 results through multidisciplinary expertise and use of a flowchart. The authors describe eight patients with TP53 variants associated with ambiguous diagnoses and, for each case, describe how the results were interpreted and the medical care that was implemented. This report presents illustrative cases to help guide clinicians to reach definitive diagnoses for patients when confronted with TP53 variants that are inconsistent with the clinical picture and to add to the body of literature regarding interpretation and medical management of TP53 variants discovered on germline testing.

Shared Decision-Making Experiences of Couples with Inherited Cancer Risk Regarding Family Building.

Patients with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes have a high likelihood of passing germline mutations to future offspring. Patients at risk for inherited cancer may not have started and/or completed building their families; thus, they must decide about having children and consider the possibility of passing on their germline mutation. Utilizing the Shared Decision Making (SDM) Model, this study explores family building decision-making communication processes in opposite-sex couples with inherited cancer risk (ICR). Fifteen couples completed two recorded, analogue discussions and dyadic interviews at two time points. Participants were recruited through social media and snowball sampling. The constant comparison method was utilized to thematically analyze the data. When couples discussed family building options (FBOs), several themes were identified: FBO risks, FBO considerations, genetic-related FBO logistics, and life FBOs logistics. When deliberating family building decisions, couples shared easy conversational topics (e.g. FBO options and potential child's cancer risk due to a genetic variant) and difficult/conflict-inducing topics (e.g. preparing for possibilities, parenting, emotions, finances, and timing). Last, couples self-reported primary and secondary FBOs. The findings of this study capture couples' decision-making communication process while considering their experiences. Clinicians and practitioners can utilize these findings to support couples' family building decisions considering their ICR.

Six case reports of NTHL1-associated tumor syndrome further support it as a multi-tumor predisposition syndrome.

NTHL1-associated tumor syndrome (NATS) is an autosomal recessive condition characterized by an increased risk for colorectal polyposis and colorectal cancer (CRC). Only 46 case reports have been previously published. In a retrospective review, we analyzed the clinical histories of six patients found to have NATS after genetic counseling and testing. NATS appears to be associated with an increased risk for colorectal polyposis, CRC, female breast cancer, meningiomas, and endometrial cancer. Although research is limited, prior publications have reported a multi-tumor predisposition for individuals with biallelic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in NTHL1. Additional data are necessary to further define the cancer risks so affected individuals can be appropriately managed.

Feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a pilot intervention facilitating communication about family building between patients with inherited cancer risk and their partners.

Objective: This study reports the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a longitudinal, communication pilot intervention for patients with inherited cancer risk and their partners. Methods: Couples were recruited through social media and snowball sampling. At Time 1 and 2, 15 couples completed a structured discussion task about family building concerns and decisions, followed by an online post-discussion questionnaire and dyadic interview to provide feedback about the experience. Interview data were analyzed to assess outcomes using applied thematic analysis. Results: Participants reported the intervention created an opportunity for honest disclosure of family building goals and concerns. Participants also stated the structured nature of the discussion task was useful and did not cause additional stress. The intervention ultimately aided at-risk patients and their partners to realize their concordant concerns, discover/confront discordant concerns, and mutually agree upon next steps. Conclusions: This pilot intervention is feasible and acceptable. Furthermore, it offers a framework to facilitate effective communication about family building between patients with inherited cancer risk and their partners. Innovation: This intervention is the first conversational tool designed for at-risk patients and their partners.