The Dietary Quality of Food Pantry Users: A Systematic Review of Existing Literature

Simmet, Anja; Depa, Julia; Tinnemann, Peter; Stroebele‐Benschop, Nanette

doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.08.014

Cited by 117 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the nutritional quality of pantry food is inadequate for a healthy diet (2). Likewise, pantry clients’ fruit and vegetable consumption falls short of recommendations (3). A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) project sought to increase access to healthy food — including fresh fruits and vegetables (FFVs) — for pantry clients in northwest Arkansas, with particular emphasis on Pacific Islander and Hispanic clients.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Intervention to Improve Access to Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Arkansas Food Pantry Clients

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food pantries serve millions of Americans, yet the nutritional quality of foods distributed has been poor. Policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) changes were implemented in 3 food pantries in northwest Arkansas with the aims of improving the nutritional quality of foods distributed and increasing distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables (FFVs). Between pre-intervention and 1 year follow-up, food pantry bag audits showed increases from 20,256.38 to 25,108.46 calories distributed per household (P = .009) and 0.22 to 3.33 servings of FFVs distributed per person per household (P < .001). Findings highlight the promise of pantry-level PSE interventions.

show abstract

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Intervention to Improve Access to Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Arkansas Food Pantry Clients

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These barriers to weight management were also identified in other studies. 42,43 Despite some initiatives such as food banks and food pantries aimed to improve food accessibility, such programs often offer foods that do not meet nutrition recommendations 44 and do not offer many healthy options to patients. 39 The lack of healthy food options in some food banks and food pantries can render weight management cumbersome for patients who rely on these initiatives for nourishment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietitians' perspectives on patient barriers and enablers to weight management: An application of the social‐ecological model

Aboueid

Pouliot

Nur

et al. 2019

Nutrition & Dietetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Dietitians are nutrition experts who conduct nutrition assessments and provide support to patients seeking to manage their weight. The aim of the present study was to assess dietitians' perspectives on the barriers and enablers encountered by patients during their weight management journey. Methods Fourteen individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted over a 3‐month period in 2017 with dietitians working in Ontario, Canada. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers coded the data independently using a directed content analysis approach. Results Emerging themes were classified at societal, community, relationship, individual levels of the social‐ecological model (SEM). Barriers included low socioeconomic status, ‘go big or go home approach’, lack of knowledge and cooking skills, lack of time, emotional eating, unsupportive home and work environments, discrimination and weight bias, lack of communication between health professionals, and low accessibility to healthy foods. Enablers included community programs, workplaces promoting healthy behaviours, and ongoing clinical support. Dietitians mentioned that patients encounter many barriers that may coexist and hinder weight management and/or maintenance of lost weight. Conclusions Communication between health team members and ongoing patient support in the clinical setting are required. A whole‐of‐government, whole‐of‐society approach is needed to target the various aforementioned barriers at various level of the SEM.

show abstract

“…In addition, two recently conducted reviews [8, 9], including some of the studies described above, conclude that food-assistance users do not meet dietary recommendations. On the other hand, some differences were found between our study and other studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dutch food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low-socioeconomic status Dutch adult population

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeFood-assistance program users are a specific group of nutritional concern, as they are often food insufficient and have poorer diet quality compared to non-food-assistance program users. The aim of our study was to assess dietary intake of Dutch food bank recipients (n = 167) and to compare this with dietary intake of a representative sample of the general population (Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS-all): n = 1933), including a low-socioeconomic status (SES) sample (DNFCS-low SES: n = 312), using data from the DNFCS 2007–2010.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 12 food banks throughout The Netherlands participated. Food bank recipients’ characteristics were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. Dietary intake data were collected through three 24-h recalls. Habitual dietary intake (mean, percentiles, and 95% CI) was estimated for all samples. Differences between samples were determined by comparing the 95% CIs.ResultsMean age of the study population (62.9% female) was 48.6 years (SD:10.1). Mean energy intake was 1986 (95% CI 1830–2089) kcal. The majority of the Dutch food bank recipients had lower intakes than dietary reference intakes for dietary fiber, fruit, vegetables, and fish (range 86.6–99.3%), and a higher intake for saturated fat [88.1% (95% CI 84.1–98.9)]. Furthermore, mean intakes of energy, fiber, fruit, and vegetables were significantly lower in Dutch food bank recipients than in the DNFCS-all and the DNFCS-low-SES [e.g., daily mean fruit intake (g) food bank recipients 62.8 (95% CI 45.5–76.5), DNFCS-all 105.8 (95% CI 105.4–117.9), and DNFCS-low-SES 85.1 (95% CI 78.7–100.2)]. Fish intake was significantly lower compared with the DNFCS-all, but not compared with the DNFCS-low-SES.ConclusionsDutch food bank recipients, who largely rely on the content of food parcels, are not able to meet the nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet, and their dietary intake is poorer than the general as well as the low-SES sample of the Dutch adult population. More research is needed on how to improve the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup, by, e.g., revising the content of the food parcels, and to develop effective intervention activities.

show abstract

The Dietary Quality of Food Pantry Users: A Systematic Review of Existing Literature

Cited by 117 publications

References 74 publications

Intervention to Improve Access to Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Arkansas Food Pantry Clients

Intervention to Improve Access to Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Arkansas Food Pantry Clients

Dietitians' perspectives on patient barriers and enablers to weight management: An application of the social‐ecological model

Dutch food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low-socioeconomic status Dutch adult population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About