Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report perspectives of participants in a food benefit programme that includes foods high in added sugar (FAS) restrictions and FAS restrictions paired with fruits and vegetables (F/V) incentives. DESIGN: Randomised experimental trial in which participant perspectives were an exploratory study outcome. SETTING: Participants were randomised into one of three Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-like food benefit programme groups: (1) restriction: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits; (2) restriction paired with incentive: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits and 30 % financial incentive on eligible F/V purchased using benefits; or (3) control: same food purchasing rules as SNAP. Participants were asked questions to assess programme satisfaction. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, eligible for but not currently participating in SNAP who completed baseline and follow-up study measures (n 254). RESULTS: Among remaining households in each group, most found the programme helpful in buying nutritious foods (88·2 %-95·7 %) and were satisfied with the programme (89·1 %-93·0 %). Sensitivity analysis results indicate that reported helpfulness and satisfaction with the programme may in some instances be lower among the restriction and the restrictions paired with incentive groups in comparison to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A food benefit programme that includes restriction on purchase of FAS or restriction paired with a financial incentive for F/V purchases may be acceptable to most SNAP-eligible households with children.