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

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

Characteristic	Baseline mean (95% CI) or n (%)	Follow-up mean (95% CI) or n (%)	p-value^a
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 users^d)
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

^ap-values reflect pairwise t-test for differences in means between baseline and follow up
^bOnly includes those participants who responded to follow-up surveys; one participant from Downtown CHC preferred not to answer these questions
^cNote that a lower food security score indicates a higher level of food security
^dIncludes only those participants that reported using ≥50%of their vouchers

ISSN: 2049-3258