Skip to main content

Table 2 Food security scores for participants at baseline and follow-up of a 12-week fresh food prescription program in Guelph, Ontario, Canada in 2019–2020

From: “I was eating more fruits and veggies than I have in years”: a mixed methods evaluation of a fresh food prescription intervention

Characteristic Baseline mean (95% CI) or n (%) Follow-up mean (95% CI) or n (%) p-valuea
Food security score (all participants)b,c
 Adult score (n = 35) 4.1 (3.3–4.9) 2.5 (1.6–3.3) < 0.001
 Child score (n = 14) 1.9 (0.92–2.9) 0.93 (0.23–1.6) 0.01
Food security score (Downtown Guelph CHC participants)
 Adult score (n = 19) 4.5 (3.4–5.6) 2.5 (1.2–3.7) < 0.001
 Child score (n = 8) 2.4 (0.85–4.0) 1.3 (0.21–2.0) 0.05
Food security score (Shelldale CHC participants)
 Adult score (n = 16) 3.5 (2.3–4.7) 2.5 (1.2–3.8) 0.14
 Child score (n = 6) 1.2 (−0.060–2.4) 0.50 (−1.1–2.3) 0.10
Food security score (frequent usersd)
 Adult score (n = 15) 4.1 (2.7–5.5) 1.7 (0.4–3.0) < 0.001
 Child score (n = 8) 2.1 (0.1–4.1) 1.0 (0.1–1.9) 0.20
Food security category (n = 35)
 Food secure 0 (0%) 9 (25.7%)  
 Marginally food insecure 4 (11.4%) 7 (20.0%)  
 Moderately food insecure 20 (57.1%) 13 (37.1%)  
 Severely food insecure 11 (31.4%) 6 (17.1%)  
Food security score by category at baseline
 Marginally food insecure at baseline (n = 4) 1 (1–1) 0.5 (−0.42–1.4) 0.18
 Moderately food insecure at baseline (n = 20) 3.3 (2.7–3.8) 2.2 (1.0–3.4) 0.07
 Severely food insecure at baseline (n = 11) 7.0 (6.5–7.5) 3.7 (2.3–5.2) < 0.001
  1. ap-values reflect pairwise t-test for differences in means between baseline and follow up
  2. bOnly includes those participants who responded to follow-up surveys; one participant from Downtown CHC preferred not to answer these questions
  3. cNote that a lower food security score indicates a higher level of food security
  4. dIncludes only those participants that reported using ≥50%of their vouchers