Economic evaluation of a farm-to-Special Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children intervention promoting vegetable consumption.
Economic evaluation of a farm-to-Special Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children intervention promoting vegetable consumption.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s1368980021001981
复制
发表时间：
2021-08
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Sikorskii A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Di Noia J;Monica D;Jensen HH;Sikorskii A
评估“从农场到特别补充营养计划”的成本和成本效益，以促进蔬菜摄入，并在农贸市场购买农产品时兑换“特别补充营养计划”券。利用干预措施试点的数据进行了经济分析。采用反射光谱仪（Veggie Meter®[VM]）和自我报告的方式评估蔬菜摄入量。代金券兑换由WIC报告。从实施干预的机构的角度，以2019年美元估算6个月期间的总干预成本和每位参与者的干预成本和成本效益比（以每次干预效果的成本表示）。环境：大型城市WIC机构。参与者是297名在wic注册的成年人。干预后，干预组的VM评分、自我报告的蔬菜摄入量和代金券兑换量均高于对照组。在6个月期间，干预成本为31,092美元（每位参与者的单位成本为194美元）。与对照组相比，每位参与者每增加VM评分，干预成本为8.10美元，每位参与者每增加一杯/天的蔬菜消费量，干预成本为3.85美元，每位参与者每增加一个百分点的代金券兑换成本为3.29美元。干预措施的成本和成本效益比与报告的针对低收入群体蔬菜摄入的其他干预措施相比较，表明该计划在促进蔬菜购买和消费方面可能具有成本效益。由于没有基准来比较以单位效益成本表示的成本效益比率，因此必须等待进一步研究才能得出结论。
To evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of a farm-to-Special Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) intervention to promote vegetable intake and the redemption of WIC vouchers for produce purchases at farmers’ markets. An economic analysis was undertaken using data from a pilot of the intervention. Vegetable intake was assessed with a reflection spectroscopy device (the Veggie Meter® [VM]) and via self-report. Voucher redemption was reported by WIC. Total and per participant intervention costs and cost-effectiveness ratios (expressed as cost per intervention effect) were estimated in 2019 US dollars over a 6-month period from the perspective of the agency implementing the intervention. Setting: A large, urban WIC agency. Participants were 297 WIC-enrolled adults. Post-intervention, VM scores, self-reported vegetable intake and voucher redemption were higher in the intervention as compared with the control study group. Over the 6-month period, intervention costs were $31 092 ($194 unit cost per participant). Relative to the control group, the intervention cost $8·10 per increased VM score per participant, $3·85 per increased cup/d of vegetables consumed per participant and $3·29 per increased percentage point in voucher redemption per participant. Intervention costs and cost-effectiveness ratios compared favourably with those reported for other interventions targeting vegetable intake in low-income groups, suggesting that the programme may be cost effective in promoting vegetable purchases and consumption. As there is no benchmark against which to compare cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per unit of effectiveness, conclusions regarding whether this is the case must await further research.