TL;DR
Turn quiet afternoons into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
In a 12-week randomized study of 67 food-insecure older adults, 89.2% of produce provided through home-delivery programs was prepared and consumed, compared with 28.3% in a voucher program requiring a market visit. The study, published in Frontiers in Public Health, found no added produce use from meal kits compared with produce boxes; researchers say the results may help inform future program design.
A 12-week randomized study by University at Buffalo researchers found that food-insecure older adults used fresh produce more often when it was delivered to their homes than when they had to redeem vouchers at a market. Produce redemption—defined in the study as preparation and consumption—was 89.2% in both delivery groups, versus 28.3% in the voucher group, according to findings published in Frontiers in Public Health.
The study included 67 adults recruited from primary care clinics at Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo. Participants were mostly African American, over age 65, and had reported experiencing food insecurity at times. Researchers assigned them to one of three approaches over 12 weeks: weekly home-delivered produce boxes, home-delivered meal kits containing produce and ingredients for three meals, or vouchers redeemable at a hospital mobile market or participating FeedMore Western New York markets.
In the produce-box group, participants could customize their orders if they wished. Meal-kit participants could select from five or six weekly options. The voucher group had to travel to a participating market to obtain the food. Researchers reported that produce use reached 89.2% in each home-delivery arm, compared with 28.3% in the voucher arm. The meal kits did not result in higher use than produce boxes.
Lucia A. Leone, the study’s corresponding author and an associate professor at UB, said participants sometimes did not use deliveries because they were away or already had enough food. The delivery programs received ratings above 9 out of 10 from participants, who also said they would recommend them to others. The study was published in 2026 in Frontiers in Public Health.
Delivery Removed a Market Trip
The findings point to access and convenience as practical factors that can shape whether people use food benefits. Leone told Medical Xpress that some voucher recipients may lack transportation to a redemption site or feel uncomfortable collecting assistance at a food pantry. Home delivery removes the need for that trip, though the study did not establish which barrier mattered most to participants.
For programs aimed at older adults experiencing food insecurity, the results suggest that the way food is provided may affect how much reaches the table. The difference in this study was between produce brought to the home and vouchers requiring a visit to a market, not simply between receiving assistance and receiving none. The result is relevant to program planners considering delivery, but its scale and local setting limit how broadly it can be applied.
The study also found no additional increase in produce use from meal kits compared with produce boxes. Leone suggested that participants may already have known how to prepare the foods. That observation is the researcher’s interpretation; the trial’s reported result is that measured use was the same in the two delivery arms.
Products Worth Considering
Bose Lifestyle Ultra Wireless Home Speaker
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact Microphone-Free Speaker, White
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Three Programs, One Local Trial
Food prescription programs provide food support—often produce—through referrals or benefits intended for people facing food insecurity. In the approach tested as the study’s standard care, recipients received vouchers to spend at specified markets. The researchers compared that model with two forms of weekly home delivery: produce boxes and meal kits.
The research team described voucher redemption as a longstanding challenge and cited prior program use rates of 9% to 18%. That figure is background reported in the Medical Xpress account, not a finding from this trial, and the source does not give a shared measurement window or comparison baseline for those prior programs. In the trial itself, the voucher arm’s measured produce use was 28.3%.
The trial was conducted in Buffalo with FreshFix, a local food delivery company, and local food-market partners. The paper, by Lucia A. Leone and colleagues, is titled “A randomized controlled study comparing three food prescription programs for older adults: program design, implementation, and utilization.” It appeared in Frontiers in Public Health in 2026.
“The problem historically with food prescription programs is that people get the vouchers but don’t redeem them.”
— Lucia A. Leone, study corresponding author, as quoted by Medical Xpress
How Far the Results Apply
The study involved 67 participants at one health system in Buffalo, so it does not show whether the same results would hold in larger or different populations. The source reports that participants were mostly African American adults over 65, but does not provide enough detail here to determine how outcomes varied across demographic groups or individual circumstances.
The trial measured produce preparation and consumption, but the report does not provide detailed results on changes in participants’ health or longer-term food security. It also does not establish whether delivery would be as effective if programs could not offer order customization or a consistent delivery worker. Leone said the meal kits did not increase produce use and suggested the participants’ existing cooking skills may explain that result; the study does not confirm that explanation.
The researchers’ reported redemption figure is an outcome from this trial, not a guarantee that other programs will reach the same level. Costs, staffing needs and scalability are not established by the figures provided in the report.
Researchers Plan a Family Trial
Leone and colleagues plan a similar study with families enrolled in Medicaid who experience food insecurity and have children ages 2 to 6. The team will work with local pediatric practices, according to the report. That research will test the approach with a different population and may show whether the older-adult findings translate to families with young children.
The current study’s authors say delivery and customization may be useful program features, but the next trial will add evidence rather than settle how food prescriptions should be designed across settings. Further information about the family study’s start date, size and specific program arms was not provided in the source report.
Key Questions
What did the study find?
Among 67 food-insecure older adults in a 12-week trial, 89.2% of produce in each home-delivery group was prepared and consumed, compared with 28.3% in the voucher group, which required a market visit.
Did meal kits lead participants to use more produce?
No difference was reported. Produce use was 89.2% in both delivery groups, whether participants received produce boxes or meal kits. The researchers suggested that participants may already have known how to use the produce, but that explanation was not confirmed by the reported result.
Who took part in the trial?
The study recruited 67 adults from primary care clinics at Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo. Participants were mostly African American, over 65, and had indicated that they had experienced food insecurity at times.
Can the findings be applied to all food prescription programs?
Not based on this trial alone. It was a small study in one local setting, and its results may not apply to programs with different participants, delivery arrangements or resources. The researchers plan a separate study involving Medicaid families with young children.
Source: rss
