A Cluster-Randomized Evaluation of the SuperShelf Intervention in Choice-Based Food Pantries.

BACKGROUND: Interventions in food pantry settings have the potential to improve health among clients at risk of diet-related disease. PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether a cluster-randomized, behavioral intervention in food pantries resulted in improved client outcomes. METHODS: Sixteen Minnesota food pantries were randomized to an intervention (n = 8) or control condition (n = 8). The intervention offered pantries technical assistance to improve healthy food supply and implement behavioral economics strategies to promote healthy food selection. A convenience sample of adult clients were enrolled (paired sample, 158 intervention, 159 control) and followed for 1 year. Additional clients were enrolled at follow-up to assess food selection (follow-up sample, 85 intervention, 102 control). Analysis was limited to data from 11 pantries (5 intervention, 6 control) due to COVID-19. Outcome measures included Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) total and subcomponent scores for 24-hr dietary recalls and client cart selections, and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) total and subcomponent scores. Multilevel mixed-effects models tested whether client outcomes differed by intervention condition. RESULTS: In adjusted models, there were no statistically significant differences by intervention condition in HEI-2015 or LS7 scores. Clients in intervention food pantries had improved Refined Grain subcomponent scores (p = .004); clients in control pantries had worsened Saturated Fat subcomponents scores (p = .019) and improved physical activity scores (p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not result in improved diet quality or cardiovascular health as measured by HEI-2015 or LS7. Coordinated efforts across settings are needed to address health risks facing this population.

Food pantries are an optimal setting to address health and diet quality among clients experiencing food insecurity. This study tests whether a food pantry intervention resulted in improved dietary and cardiovascular outcomes among clients. Sixteen Minnesota food pantries were randomized to either receive an intervention or a delayed intervention. The intervention offered food pantries technical assistance to improve healthy food supply and "nudge" clients toward healthy choices. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, measures were completed 11 pantries (5 intervention, 6 control). Outcome measures included diet quality of food selected by clients, diet quality of food consumed by clients, and Life's Simple 7 measure of cardiovascular health. The intervention did not result in improved diet quality or cardiovascular health. Coordinated efforts across community settings are needed to address health risks facing this population.

The lived experience of food pantry users in Minnesota: Qualitative findings from a statewide survey.

Objectives: In 2017 a community-University of Minnesota collaborative conducted a statewide survey of food pantry clients. Methods: Of the 188 food pantries surveyed, 4321 individual client surveys were returned, from which 2,251 open-ended responses were analyzed. Results: Respondents shared gratitude for the food pantry in meeting their needs for food and support. Many described accessing healthy food that was needed to address health needs. Respondents described life circumstances and hardships that led to food pantry use. Conclusion: The supportive environment provided by food pantries position them to address the needs of clients, including those with complex health needs.

A randomized study of food pantry environment-level change following the SuperShelf intervention.

The charitable food system is rapidly evolving. Interventions that target the food pantry environment and use behavioral economics are in high demand, but can be difficult to implement in a low-resource setting. This is an analysis of secondary, environment-level outcomes in a food pantry intervention (SuperShelf); the study evaluates whether the intervention resulted in measurable changes to the food pantry environment and improved diet quality of the food available to clients, compared with a control group of food pantries. Eleven food pantries were randomized to an intervention (n = 5) or control (n = 6) condition and completed baseline and one-year follow-up measures between 2018 and 2020. The intervention addressed healthy food supply and the appeal of healthy foods using behavioral economics. Assessments included manager surveys, intervention fidelity, food inventory, and food supply tracked over 5 days. Measures included change in intervention fidelity (range 0-100) with four subcomponents; Healthy Eating Index scores (HEI-2015, range 0-100) with 13 subcomponents; and Food Assortment Scoring Tool scores (FAST, range 0-100). Descriptive analyses and t-tests examined pre-post changes within and between intervention arms. Average fidelity scores increased from baseline to follow-up in the intervention group compared with the control group (p < .001), as did FAST scores (p = .02). Average HEI-2015 Total scores increased in the intervention group by 6.3 points and by 1.6 points in the control group, but the difference in change between groups was not statistically significant (p = .56). The intervention was implemented with high fidelity at five sites, with some evidence of change in the nutritional quality of the food available on the shelf to clients.

Needs and Preferences Among Food Pantry Clients.

INTRODUCTION: Food pantries serve households in need, including many with a family member with a diet-related chronic disease, yet data on client priorities to inform hunger relief practices are lacking. We used a statewide client survey in Minnesota to determine needs and priorities of food pantry clients in 2017 and 2019 and to identify how well Minnesota pantries met those needs in 2019. METHODS: Our survey was administered in 2017 and 2019. Food pantries in Minnesota were mailed 25 surveys each, with instructions for administering the surveys anonymously to clients. Descriptive analyses compared 2017 and 2019 data and compared client priorities for foods and services with how often they were available at the pantry in 2019. RESULTS: The 2017 survey represented 4,321 clients from 188 pantries; the 2019 survey represented 5,529 clients from 220 pantries. Most measures of food pantry use were consistently high across the years; about three-quarters of clients had been visiting the pantry for a year or more. In 2019, 85% of clients said it was important to have fresh fruits and vegetables, but only 52% said these were always available. About two-thirds had a household member with a diet-related chronic disease. The ability to choose their own foods was clients' top priority. CONCLUSION: The types of food most requested by clients tended to be healthy but were inconsistently available. Most important to clients was being able to choose their own food. Results underscore the need for continued monitoring of client priorities.