BackgroundThe association between farmers’ market characteristics and consumer shopping habits remains unclear. Our objective was to examine associations among distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that the relationship between frequency of farmers’ market shopping and BMI would be mediated by fruit and vegetable consumption.MethodsIn 15 farmers’ markets in northeastern North Carolina, July–September 2015, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among 263 farmers’ market customers (199 provided complete address data) and conducted farmers’ market audits. To participate, customers had to be over 18 years of age, and English speaking. Dependent variables included farmers’ market shopping frequency, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI. Analysis of variance, adjusted multinomial logistic regression, Poisson regression, and linear regression models, adjusted for age, race, sex, and education, were used to examine associations between distance to farmers’ markets, amenities within farmers’ markets, frequency of farmers’ market shopping, fruit and vegetable consumption, and BMI.ResultsThose who reported shopping at farmers’ markets a few times per year or less reported consuming 4.4 (standard deviation = 1.7) daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and those who reported shopping 2 or more times per week reported consuming 5.5 (2.2) daily servings. There was no association between farmers’ market amenities, and shopping frequency or fruit and vegetable consumption. Those who shopped 2 or more times per week had a statistically significantly lower BMI than those who shopped less frequently. There was no evidence of mediation of the relationship between frequency of shopping and BMI by fruit and vegetable consumption.ConclusionsMore work should be done to understand factors within farmers’ markets that encourage fruit and vegetable purchases.

In the Southern United States (U.S.), food insecurity rates are higher in rural (20.8%) versus urban communities (15%). Food insecurity can exacerbate diet-related disease. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine differences in the use of food-related community resources and potential solutions proposed among food insecure versus food secure residents. A community survey (n = 370) was conducted in rural eastern North Carolina, with questions pertaining to food security status and food-related resources. The IBM SPSS Statistics software and SAS software were used to examine differences in food-related resources, and qualitative data analysis was used to examine differences in solutions offered between food insecure and food secure participants. Of the 370 respondents, forty-eight-point-six percent were classified as food insecure. Food insecure participants were more likely to report shopping for groceries at a convenience/discount store, less likely to use their own vehicle for transportation, and less likely to purchase food from local producers. Food insecure participants were more likely to suggest solutions related to reducing the cost of healthy food, while food secure participants were more likely to suggest educational or convenience-related interventions.

Objective: To conduct a mixed-methods examination of the impact of the Partnerships to Improve Community Health produce prescription initiative in northeastern North Carolina. Design: Quantitative surveys were conducted among participants before and after the distribution of produce prescription vouchers. Univariate statistics were used to describe the participant population, and paired t tests were used to examine change in fruit and vegetable intake. Qualitative, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted among participants, health educators, and food retailers and coded for themes. Setting: Eight health promotion programs, 2 food pantries, and 11 food retailers. Participants: In each health promotion program or food pantry, between 6 and 97 participants were enrolled. Intervention: Produce prescription vouchers were distributed to participants and redeemed at local food retailers. Main Outcome Measure (s): An increase in local fruit and vegetable purchasing and consumption. Results: Of the produce prescription participants who completed the baseline survey (n = 93), 86% were female, 64% were African American, and 68% were food insecure. The voucher redemption rate was 18%. The majority of participants indicated that they visit farmers' markets more now than before the produce prescription initiative, that shopping at the farmers' market made it easy to include more fresh produce in their family's diet, and that they tried a new farmers' market because of the produce prescription initiative. All health educators and food retailers who participated felt that the initiative benefited their program or operation and were willing to partner with the program again. Conclusions: While redemption rates were lower than anticipated, the produce prescription initiative had positive impacts on participants' local fruit and vegetable purchasing and consumption. Because of COVID-19, the initiative was not implemented until late in the North Carolina produce season. Moving forward, the program will start earlier and work with local food retailers to connect with their communities to increase redemption rates.