Facilitators and Barriers to Patient Attendance at a Free Health Center Produce Market.

INTRODUCTION: Patient participation in healthcare system‒sponsored efforts to address food insecurity varies widely. This mixed-methods study sought to understand the patient sociodemographic factors associated with and barriers and facilitators to the use of a monthly produce market held at Cambridge Health Alliance in partnership with The Greater Boston Food Bank. METHODS: Baseline surveys (N=715) were conducted from February 2019 to March 2020 before market attendance, followed by 1-year follow-up surveys (n=514) and qualitative interviews (n=45). Robust Poisson regression estimated associations between sociodemographic characteristics and market attendance. Analyses were conducted from 2021 to 2022. RESULTS: A total of 37.1% attended the market ≥1 time. Market attendance was associated with being aged 30-49 years (Risk Ratio (RR)=1.36, 95% CI=1.00, 1.86), having a monthly household income <$1,000 (RR=1.73, 95% CI=1.29, 2.32), identifying as Asian (RR=2.48, 95% CI=1.58, 3.89), having a preferred language for medical care other than English (RR=1.35, 95% CI=1.03, 1.76), being retired (RR=1.90, 95% CI=1.17, 3.08), and living in the city of the market's location (RR=1.36, 95% CI=1.12, 1.63). Barriers included limited time (28%), work conflict (23%), forgetfulness (23%), and not knowing market location/date (22%). Interviews revealed that accessibility barriers (e.g., limited market hours, transportation issues, competing demands, medical conditions, long lines) were obstacles to attendance, whereas access to novel, healthy foods motivated attendance. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare-based food distributions have the potential to reach patients with unmet food needs who cannot or would not access other forms of food assistance. Time constraints, physical limitations, and transportation challenges impact attendance; program modifications are necessary to improve accessibility.

Variation in State-Level Eviction Moratorium Protections and Mental Health Among US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although evictions have been associated with adverse mental health outcomes, it remains unclear which stages of the eviction process are associated with mental distress among renters. Variation in COVID-19 pandemic eviction protections across US states enables identification of intervention targets within the eviction process to improve renters' mental health. Objective: To measure the association between the strength of eviction protections (ie, stages blocked by eviction moratoriums) and mental distress among renters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used individual-level, nationally representative data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America Survey to measure associations between state eviction moratorium protections and mental distress. The sample of 2317 respondents included renters with annual household incomes less than $75 000 who reported a state of residence and completed surveys between March 10 and September 3, 2020, prior to the federal eviction moratorium order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposures: Time-varying strength of state moratorium protections as a categorical variable: none, weak (blocking court hearings, judgments, or enforcement without blocking notice or filing), or strong (blocking all stages of the eviction process beginning with notice and filing). Main Outcomes and Measures: Moderate to severe mental distress was measured using the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Linear regression models were adjusted for time-varying state COVID-19 incidence and mortality, public health restrictions, and unemployment rates. Models included individual and time fixed effects as well as clustered standard errors. Results: The sample consisted of 2317 individuals (20 853 total observations) composed largely (1788 [78%] weighted) of middle-aged adults (25-64 years of age) and women (1538 [60%]); 640 respondents (23%) self-reported as Hispanic or Latinx, 314 respondents (20%) as non-Hispanic Black, and 1071 respondents (48%) as non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity. Relative to no state-level eviction moratorium protections, strong protections were associated with a 12.6% relative reduction (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) in the probability of mental distress, whereas weak protections were not associated with a statistically significant reduction (risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis of the Understanding Coronavirus in America Survey data found that strong eviction moratoriums were associated with protection against mental distress, suggesting that distress begins early in the eviction process with notice and filing. This finding is consistent with the idea that to reduce mental distress among renters, policy makers should focus on primary prevention of evictions.