Compared to traditional paper surveys, online surveys offer a convenient, efficient, and socially distant way to conduct human subjects research. The popularity of online research has grown in recent decades. However, without proper precautions, false respondents pose a serious risk to data integrity. In this paper, we describe our research team’s own encounter with survey fraud, steps taken to preserve the integrity of our study, and implications for future public health research.

Structural inequities contribute to food systems in which tribal communities in the U.S. are more likely to experience barriers to healthy food access, including financial barriers, lack of geographic proximity, or both. Food sovereignty movements improve food access by shifting power to local people to build food systems that support cultural, social, economic, and environmental needs. Finan­cial incentive programs, including produce pre­scription programs, have emerged as a promising intervention to improve food access and support food sovereignty. This case study describes the implementation of two federally funded produce prescription programs (Produce Prescription Pro­jects or PPR) under the U.S. Department of Agri­culture (USDA) Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incen­tive Program (GusNIP) in two rural tribal communities: the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta region in Alaska, and the Navajo Nation, which spans parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. We illus­trate how PPR can be tailored to accommodate local and diverse cultures, strengthen community power, and be uniquely suited for the challenges of increasing access to nutritious food in rural tribal communities. We also highlight recommendations and future areas of research that may be useful for other rural tribal communities implementing PPR.

IMPORTANCE Fruit and vegetable vouchers have been implemented by cities and counties across the US to increase fruit and vegetable intake and thereby improve overall nutritional quality. OBJECTIVE To determine whether and why use of fruit and vegetable vouchers are associated with varied nutritional intake across different populations and environments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In a population-based pre-post cohort study of 671 adult participants with low income before and during (6 months after initiation) participation in a 6-month program, fruit and vegetable vouchers were distributed for redemption at local San Francisco and Los Angeles neighborhood grocery and corner stores between 2017 and 2019. A transportability analysis was performed to identify factors that may explain variation in voucher use between cities.

Nutrition assistance programs are the subject of ongoing policy debates. Two proposals remain uninformed by existing evidence: whether restricting benefits to allow only fruit and vegetable purchases improves overall dietary intake, and whether more frequent distribution of benefits (weekly versus monthly) induces more fruit and vegetable consumption and less purchasing of calorie-dense foods. In a community-based trial, we randomly assigned participants to receive food vouchers that differed in what foods could be purchased (fruit and vegetables only or any foods) and in distribution schedule (in weekly or monthly installments, holding total monthly value constant). The use of vouchers for fruit and vegetables only did not yield significantly greater improvements than the unrestricted voucher did in terms of fruit and vegetable consumption or Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score. Weekly vouchers also failed to yield significantly greater improvements than monthly vouchers did. Proposed policies to make assistance more restricted or more frequent, while holding benefit value constant, might not improve nutrition among low-income Americans. Nutrition assistance programs governed by the 2018 Farm Bill have come under increasing scrutiny. 1,2 Federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program