Identifying Food Pantry Client and Staff Preferences for Nutritious no Prep Ready-to-eat Meals Versus Ingredient Bundles as an Effort to Increase Food Security, Improve Nutrition, and Promote Well-being
Phase: NA
Conditions: Diet, Healthy, Food Security
Sponsor: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
1 
V2Mar2018 
COVER PAGE 
 
Official title: Identifying Food Pantry Client and Staff Preferences for Nutritious no Prep Ready-to-
eat Meals Versus Ingredient Bundles as an Effort to Increase Food Security, Improve Nutrition, 
and Promote Well-being 
 
NCT number: NCT05593510 
 
Document date: August 30th, 2022 
 
 
 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
2 
V2Mar2018 
 
If an item does not apply to your research project, indicate that the question is "not applicable” – do not leave sections blank 
 
Click once on the highlighted entry in each box to provide your response.  Click the item number/letter or word, if hyperlinked, 
for detailed instructions for that question.  If your response requires inserting a table, picture, etc, you may need to first delete the 
box that surrounds the answer and then insert your table or other special document. 
 
 
1.  Purpose and objectives.           List the purpose and objectives: 
 
The specific aims of this pilot study are: Aim 1) To identify whether no prep ready to eat meals (intervention) or ingredient 
bundles (control) have higher client acceptability, liking, satisfaction, and perceived diet quality ratings. Hypothesis: No prep 
ready to eat meals will have higher client acceptability, liking, satisfaction, and perceived diet quality scores than ingredient 
bundles. Rationale: Previous research has shown that acceptance, liking, satisfaction, and perceived diet quality are important 
determinants of the foods people are willing to eat and the ultimate success of diet-related interventions12. Aim 1 will establish 
which strategy is most acceptable and desirable for food pantry clients to inform the development of a future randomized-
controlled trial that will aim to test which strategy is most effective at improving objective dietary quality and reducing health-
related risk factors. Aim 2) To identify whether no prep ready to eat meals (intervention) or ingredient bundles (control) have 
higher feasibility ratings with food pantry staff. Hypothesis: No prep ready to eat meals will have higher feasibility ratings than 
ingredient bundles among pantry staff. Rationale: It’s unclear how much staff time and pantry resources are needed to put 
together an ingredient bundle from a recipe or store no prep ready to eat meals in appropriate refrigeration units. This pilot study 
will determine the resources needed to carry out each program and determine which is preferable and feasible for the pantry staff 
that would be asked to carry out either model given that staff buy-in is a key component to intervention success13. 
 
 
2.  Background. 
• 
Describe past experimental and/or clinical findings leading to the formulation of your study.   
• 
For research involving investigational drugs, describe the previously conducted animal and human studies.   
• 
For research that involves FDA approved drugs or devices, describe the FDA approved uses of this drug/device in 
relation to your protocol.   
• 
Attach a copy of the approved labeling as a product package insert or from the Physician’s Desk Reference.   
You may reference sponsor’s full protocol or grant application (section number and/or title) or if none, ensure background 
includes references. 
 
Please respond to all components of this item, or clearly indicate which components are not applicable. 
 
a. 
Background 
Reviews conducted in 2019 and 2022 have highlighted the urgent need for disease prevention strategies within the charitable 
food system, given the lack of evidence-based interventions. The most commonly reported interventions provide nutrition 
education, referrals to a social worker or health care provider, and/or behavioral economic approaches that “nudge” clients to 
select healthier options in client choice pantries22,23. Some of these strategies have been effective at increasing food security 
and improving client selection of healthier food items at one point in time, however, it is a small literature base, few studies 
have been designed for long-term sustainability in partnership with pantry clients and staff, and most haven’t measured 
changes in food intake. 
 
One promising nutrition intervention is ingredient bundling, which pairs fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins with 
a recipe that instructs participants on how to cook the meal. Ingredient bundles have been shown to increase ones perceived 
value of goods24 and are hypothesized to reduce some of the search and planning time associated with making healthier food 
choices25. Bundles were reported as a preferred nudging strategy by pantry clients in a formative research study5 and were 
found to increase selection of kale and whole grains when compared to recipe tasting and “treatment as usual” control groups 
in a between-subjects experiment in Connecticut9. However, in a study of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
shoppers, meal bundles were ineffective at improving grocery purchases25 and no additional studies promoting ingredient 
bundles have been conducted in food pantries to determine if the Stein et al. findings are replicable.  
 
While there are clear advantages of ingredient bundling, there are some disadvantages. There is staff time associated with 
identifying recipes and bundling ingredients from the available food donations or procurements and there is the added time 
and food preparation burden for clients. Furthermore, previous research has highlighted that people experiencing food 
insecurity may not have as much kitchen space or equipment as people who are food secure10. Among a sample of 211 
Crossroads clients specifically, 55% did not have a mixing bowl, 54% reported not owning a casserole dish, and 23% did not 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
3 
V2Mar2018 
have cutting knives or a blender26, these are kitchen tools frequently recommended for healthier meal preparation strategies 
and required to prepare many recipes, such as stir fries, smoothies, and casseroles. 
 
No prep ready-to-eat meals alleviate the time and food preparation constraints faced by people experiencing food insecurity 
and provide the opportunity to encourage more nutritious food consumption in a potentially preferable package. While market 
research and consumer scientists have identified no prep ready-to-eat meals as a burgeoning food retail avenue26, these 
meals have not been empirically tested as a strategy for improving food security, dietary quality, and health outcomes among 
clients in a food pantry setting. Given the novelty of this idea, formative research is needed to confirm the intervention is 
desirable to food pantry clients and feasible for food pantry personnel to carry out. 
 
b. 
Current practice 
Currently, food pantry clients at Crossroads receive food in one of three ways: 
1) 
Emergency box filled with food provisions filled by pantry staff – the number of pounds received is dependent on the 
household size and age of household members, the pantry client does not get to choose the food they receive 
2) 
With an appointment, clients walkthrough the pantry and select food off shelves and from inside refrigeration units 
based on a point system – points are distributed based on household size and age of household members and the 
pantry inventory, the pantry client chooses the food they receive 
3) 
With an appointment, clients select food using a web-based application that displays live inventory. Clients select 
food using the application based on the same in-house point system, the pantry client chooses the food they receive 
 
 
3.  Study Design.  
Describe the study design (e.g., single/double blind, parallel, crossover, etc.)  Consider inserting a scheme to visually present the 
study design. 
 
To test the first hypothesis, I will use a randomized repeated measures between-subjects 
design with half of the participants randomized to receive 14-days of no prep ready-to-eat 
meals (intervention, n=35) and half of the participants randomized to receive 14-days of 
ingredient bundles (control, n=35) (Figure 3). 
 
To test the second hypothesis, I will use a mixed-methods approach with food pantry staff 
(N=10), including questionnaires with fixed and open-ended items on feasibility and satisfaction 
of each distribution strategy followed by 30-minute semi-structured 1-1 interviews conducted by 
UT Southwestern study staff. 
 
 
4.  Research Plan / Description of the Research Methods:   
4.a.  Provide a comprehensive narrative describing the research methods.   
     1) Provide the order in which tests/procedures will be performed,  
     2) Provide the setting for these events and a description of the methods used to protect privacy during the study.   
     3) Provide the plan for data analysis (include as applicable the sample size calculation) 
 
Please respond to all components of this item, or clearly indicate which components are not applicable. 
 
C.1.5 Intervention Methods 
After completing consent forms, participants will be randomized to receive no prep ready-to-eat meals or ingredient bundles 
using random number generation. Participants will be unaware of their assignment until they are asked to select study meals, in 
which case it will be obvious because of the food items available to select. Participants will complete questionnaires and then 
select meals – they can select up to 2-meals, or the bundles needed to make 2-meals, for 14-days for themselves and 2 
additional members of their household. Participants will elect to receive one week of meals after selection and come back to pick-
up the second week of meals or they will take home all study meals at one time (participants choice). Participants will return at 
the end of the 2-week study period to complete the follow-up questionnaires and receive payment. A study timeline of 
intervention components and data collection is provided in Table 1 to aid visualization of the study plan and timeline for food 
pantry clients. 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
4 
V2Mar2018 
 
Table 1. Study plan and timeline for food pantry clients. 
Baseline appointment  
(Day 0) 
Intervention 
(Day 1 - Day 14) 
Follow-up appointment  
(Day 15) 
1. 
Informed consent 
2. 
Randomization 
3. 
Questionnaires (demographics, current 
pantry use, acceptability, satisfaction, 
liking, diet quality) 
4. 
Selection of preferred no prep ready-to-eat 
meals OR ingredient bundles from the 
available study foods depending on study 
assignment 
5. 
Follow-up appointment scheduled 
1. 
Participants and family 
members consume no prep 
ready-to-eat meals or ingredient 
bundles at-home for 14-days 
2. 
Depending on the client’s 
preference, reminder phone 
calls, texts, and/or emails are 
sent leading up to their follow-up 
appointment 
1. 
Questionnaires (demographics, 
current pantry use, 
acceptability, satisfaction, 
liking, diet quality) 
2. 
Participant thank you and 
payment 
 
C.1.5.1 No prep ready-to-eat meals 
Roots Food Group provides nutrient-dense dietician developed no prep ready-to-eat meals to many of the 14 million people on 
Medi-Cal in California through Aetna and HealthNet. The community-based 501c3 arm of Roots Food Group, Roots Food 
Foundation, provides the same meals and other resources to people living with blindness at no cost. Roots Food Foundation has 
agreed to donate and supply meals for this study.  
 
Pantry clients will select study meals for up to 14-days’ worth of meals for themselves and 2-members of their household using 
Crossroads online food selection platform (this platform is already built and is how clients currently select pantry foods). Roots 
Food Group produces over 70 meals. We have elected to study 14-days of meals to offer clients variety and determine which 
flavors are most desirable to clients. After ordering, meals will be retrieved from a refrigeration unit, boxed by pantry staff, and 
brought to the participant to take home. An example dinner is “Teriyaki Chicken with Roasted Potatoes and Broccoli”, and an 
example breakfast is “Omelet with Peppers and Zucchini”. Meals can be stored in a refrigerator or freezer and eaten immediately 
or after reheating depending on the meal and consumer preference. 94% and 86% of Crossroads clients reported owning a 
refrigerator and microwave respectively when previously surveyed27 and microwaves are available in many community centers 
and gas stations for public use. This makes no prep ready-to-eat meals a potential solution to many of the challenges faced by 
Crossroads pantry clients and people experiencing food insecurity. 
 
C.1.5.2 Ingredient bundles 
Ingredient bundles will group individual meal ingredients (e.g., chicken, teriyaki, broccoli, potatoes) in a bag or box and pair those 
healthy food items with a recipe that instructs the client on how to make a healthier meal. Similar to the no prep ready-to-eat meal 
initiative, clients will select ingredient bundles for themselves and 2-members of their household using Crossroads online food 
selection platform. The no prep ready-to-eat meals chosen by the PI will be selected based on the ability to closely replicate the 
meal as an ingredient bundle using food pantry inventory. “Teriyaki Chicken with Roasted Potatoes and Broccoli” is an example 
of a Roots Food Group meal that will be available for clients to select as most of the required ingredients are purchased by or 
donated to Crossroads and typically available to clients. For this study, the study team will purchase groceries for this group. This 
is to ensure availability of study foods and to procure specific ingredients, such as spices and sauces (e.g., teriyaki), cooking oils, 
and fresh fruits and vegetables. Having costs associated with ingredient bundles also makes the expense burden associated with 
each strategy more equal, which helps confirm the feasibility and sustainability of either intervention going forward. 
 
C.1.6 Measures 
C.1.6.1 Pantry Client Measures 
At the baseline appointment participants will complete informed consent and a questionnaire that includes demographics, typical 
food pantry utilization, satisfaction, acceptability, liking, and perceived diet quality. Satisfaction items will be adapted from 
previously validated food pantry client satisfaction surveys (e.g., “How satisfied are you with the amount/variety/frequency of food 
that you and others in your household receive at this food pantry?”)28. Possible responses range from very satisfied and 
somewhat satisfied to somewhat dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. Liking of study foods will be measured by showing the name 
and picture of the meal or ingredient bundle and asking participants to respond to a hedonic 9-point bipolar scale with four 
measures of liking and four measures of dislike and a neutral “neither like nor dislike” item29. Acceptability will be measured by 
showing the name and picture of the meal and asking the client whether they and/or members of their household ate the meal 
within the past 2-weeks and whether they would select the meal again if given the opportunity in the future30. Perceived dietary 
quality will be measured using a single validated item that asks participants to rate their overall diet quality as “excellent,” “very 
good,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor”31. At the follow-up appointment, participants will complete the same liking and acceptability ratings, 
and a similar satisfaction questionnaire and perceived diet quality item, except wording will be slightly modified to “How satisfied 
were you with the amount of food that you and others in your household received at the food pantry in the past 2-weeks?” “How 
would you rate your dietary quality over the past 2-weeks?”). These measures will allow us to determine between-group 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
5 
V2Mar2018 
differences at baseline as well as within- and between-group changes in acceptability, satisfaction, liking, and diet-quality after 
consuming meals over time. These measures will also identify client’s preferred meal flavors and frequency as well as the 
quantity desired in a future intervention. 
 
C.1.6.2. Pantry Staff Measures 
Food pantry staff will answer feasibility items for each of the intervention groups, such as desire to implement each food 
distribution strategy in the future, perceived appropriateness of the intervention given their organizational goals, perceived 
sustainability, and financial/staff resources needed to carry out the intervention longer term32. Staff participants will also respond 
to qualitative open-ended response items such as “Describe any challenges experienced with distributing ingredient bundles” 
“Describe any challenges experienced with distributing no prep ready-to-eat meals”. Responses to the questionnaire will be 
followed with 30-minute semi-structured 1-1 interviews with study personnel, which give pantry staff the opportunity to directly 
voice any challenges or preferences that come up when implementing either approach. The pantry personnel perspective will 
allow us to design a feasible and sustainable longer-term intervention. 
 
C.1.7. Analytic Plan 
C.1.7.1. Analytic Plan for Pantry Client Data 
Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, percentages, chi-squared tests of independence) will be used to describe participant 
characteristics and baseline differences. The independent variable of interest will be randomized group assignment (e.g., no prep 
ready to-eat-meals vs. ingredient bundles). Spearman’s correlation and/or repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will 
be used to describe the association between group assignment and client’s perceived diet quality at follow-up. If normally 
distributed, repeated-measures ANOVA is acceptable and will be used. If non-normal, Spearman’s correlation will be used. For 
the other three outcomes of interest (satisfaction, acceptability, and liking) sum scores will be calculated, and model assumptions 
will be tested (e.g. residual distributions) before proceeding with repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test for 
group effects on study outcomes of interest and group-by-time interactions. 
 
C.1.7.2 Analytic Plan for Pantry Staff Data 
Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, percentages) will be used to describe quantitative items on staff feasibility and satisfaction. 
Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended questionnaires and interviews will be synthesized into key findings and suggestions 
for future intervention development. 
 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
6 
V2Mar2018 
 
4.b.  List of the study intervention(s) being tested or evaluated under this protocol 
 
N/A - this study does not test or evaluate an intervention.    Skip to item 4.d. 
# 
Study intervention(s) being tested or evaluated under the protocol 
 
 
 
Add or delete rows as needed 
 
Affiliate 
 
Place a check next to 
institution(s) where the  
intervention will be 
performed 
Local Standard 
Practice?  
Indicate whether the 
intervention is 
considered 
acceptable practice 
locally for applicable 
institutions 
1 
 
☐ UTSW 
☐ Yes 
☐ PHHS 
☐ Yes 
☐CMC 
☐ Yes 
☐THR 
☐ Yes 
☐TSRH 
☐ Yes 
☒ Other: 
Crossroads 
Community 
Services (Food 
pantry) 
☒ Yes 
2 
 
☐ UTSW 
☐ Yes 
☐ PHHS 
☐ Yes 
☐CMC 
☐ Yes 
☐THR 
☐ Yes 
☐TSRH 
☐ Yes 
☒ Other: 
Crossroads 
Community 
Services (Food 
pantry) 
☒ Yes 
 
 
4.c.  Risk:Benefit Analysis of study interventions being tested or evaluated under this protocol 
For each study intervention identified in section 6b above, complete a risk:benefit analysis table. 
 
(Two tables are provided, copy & paste additional tables as needed or delete both tables if this study does not test an 
intervention) 
 
 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
7 
V2Mar2018 
4.c. 
Study Intervention #1 
No prep ready to eat meals 
List each group exposed to this 
intervention on a separate line. 
(e.g., experimental, control, Arm A, Arm B, 
etc) 
Or state All Groups/Subjects 
For each group, list the benefits of this intervention.  (Benefits can be directly from 
the intervention or from a monitoring procedure likely to contribute to the subject’s 
wellbeing).  If there are no benefits, state “none”. 
Experimental 
Participants, many of whom are food insecure, receive extra free food as a part of 
this study 
 
 
If you are requesting a Waiver of Informed Consent, complete the table below. 
 
If you have a consent form, list the reasonably foreseeable risks in the consent form (and do not complete this section).   
 
List the risks according to the probability (likely, less likely or rare) and magnitude (serious or not serious). 
(include: 1) expected adverse events; 2) rare and serious adverse events; 3) all other psychological, social, legal harms) 
Do not delete frequency.  Frequency must be estimated because it will assist you with determining which adverse events will require 
prompt reporting.   
 
Not serious 
Serious  
Likely 
These risks are expected to occur in 
more than 20 out of 100 subjects. 
• 
Not applicable 
• 
Not applicable 
 
Not serious 
Serious 
Less likely  
These risks are expected to occur in 5-
20 subjects or less out of 100 subjects. 
• 
Potential discomfort from 
answering 
personal 
questions or trying new 
study foods 
• 
Not applicable 
 
 
Serious 
Rare  
These risks are expected to occur in 
less than 5 subjects out of 100  
 
• 
Not applicable 
 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
8 
V2Mar2018 
4.c. 
Study Intervention #2 
Ingredient bundles or “meal kits” 
List each group exposed to this 
intervention on a separate line. 
(e.g., experimental, control, Arm A, Arm B, 
etc) 
Or state All Groups/Subjects 
For each group, list the benefits of this intervention.  (Benefits can be directly from 
the intervention or from a monitoring procedure likely to contribute to the subject’s 
well being).  If there are no benefits, state “none”. 
Control 
Participants, many of whom are food insecure, receive extra free food as a part of 
this study 
 
 
If you are requesting a Waiver of Informed Consent, complete the table below. 
 
If you have a consent form, list the reasonably foreseeable risks in the consent form (and do not complete this section).   
 
List the risks according to the probability (likely, less likely or rare) and magnitude (serious or not serious). 
(include: 1) expected adverse events; 2) rare and serious adverse events; 3) all other psychological, social, legal harms) 
Do not delete frequency.  Frequency must be estimated because it will assist you with determining which adverse events will require 
prompt reporting.   
 
Not serious 
Serious  
Likely 
These risks are expected to occur in 
more than 20 out of 100 subjects. 
• 
Not applicable 
• 
Not applicable 
 
Not serious 
Serious 
Less likely  
These risks are expected to occur in 5-
20 subjects or less out of 100 subjects. 
• 
Potential discomfort 
with 
answering 
personal questions or 
trying 
new 
study 
foods 
• 
Not applicable 
 
 
Serious 
Rare  
These risks are expected to occur in 
less than 5 subjects out of 100  
 
• 
Not applicable 
 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
9 
V2Mar2018 
 
4.d. List ALL other research procedures or components not listed in table 4.b. 
        The combination of Tables 4b and 4d should account for all of the research 
procedures that will take place during this study. 
 
Consider grouping similar procedures under a single component (e.g., blood work, CT = safety 
assessments) 
 
 
 
# 
Research component 
• 
individual 
procedures 
 
example: 
Eligibility Assessments 
• 
History and 
physical 
• 
Questionnaire 
• 
Laboratory tests 
Add or delete rows as needed 
Column A 
Local Standard 
Practice Indicate the 
number of times each 
procedure will be 
performed as stipulated 
in the research plan that 
would be performed if 
the participant were not 
participating in the 
study. 
Column B 
Research Only  
Indicate the number of times 
each procedure will be 
performed solely for research 
purposes (meaning that the 
participant would not undergo 
the same number of 
procedures or would not 
undergo the procedure(s) at 
the same frequency if they 
were not participating in the 
study) 
Column D 
Risks 
If you are requesting a Waiver of Informed 
Consent, complete the table below. 
 
List the reasonably expected risks for each procedure 
or group of procedures under the following categories 
as appropriate: 
• Serious and likely; 
• Serious and less likely; 
• Serious and rare; 
• Not serious and likely; 
• Not serious and less likely 
1 
Eligibility Assessment 
 
 
 
 
5-10-minute online or paper-
based screener, participant 
decides their preference 
Typically, there is no 
study eligibility 
assessment. However, 
clients are used to 
completing an eligibility 
assessment to use the 
pantry in general. 
Once 
Not serious and unlikely – discomfort or boredom from 
answering questions 
2 
Questionnaires 
 
 
 
 
Demographics, current pantry 
use, acceptability of study 
foods, satisfaction with study 
foods, liking of study foods, 
diet quality, food frequency 
questionnaire 
Clients typically answer 
5-7 random research 
questions per visit which 
have been programmed 
into the pantry’s web-
based application by 
other researchers. 
Clients would typically 
not answer all the 
questions we are asking 
them to complete. 
Twice (at baseline and follow-
up – 2 weeks later) 
Not serious and unlikely – discomfort or boredom from 
answering questions 
3 
Selection of preferred no 
prep ready to eat meals OR 
ingredient bundles 
depending on group 
assignment 
 
 
 
 
Using the pantry’s web-based 
application meals based on 
their group assignment. All 
meals will be added to the 
pantry inventory, but 
participants in each group will 
only see meals from their 
group assignment.  
The client would be 
selecting food off shelves 
from the pantry (note: the 
client is still able to 
receive their typical 
monthly allowance from 
the pantry & this study 
provides additional food) 
Clients will select food only 
one time, but they can decide 
to take it all at once or come 
back the following week to 
pick-up more of their order if 
it’s too much food to take at 
once – they decide 
Not serious and less likely – discomfort from trying new 
study foods, but since they are choosing what foods to 
take, this is less likely 
4 
Participants eat study 
meals 
 
 
 
 
Participants eat the meals 
they selected 
As frequently or 
infrequently as they like 
Ideally once per day, but it’s 
up to the client 
Not serious and less likely – see 3D 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
10 
V2Mar2018 
5 
Participants receive 
reminders 
 
 
 
 
Participants receive reminder 
calls, texts, and/or emails to 
try the study foods and come 
back for to their follow-up 
appointment 
Clients receive reminder 
texts, calls, and/or phone 
calls if they have a 
scheduled appointment 
with the pantry, it varies 
depending on the client 
Three times 
Not serious and less likely – client’s will confirm it’s 
okay to contact them and indicate to us which is their 
preferred method of contact (call, phone, email) 
 
 
 
5.  Safety Precautions.  (Describe safeguards to address the serious risks listed above.) 
a.  Describe the procedures for protecting against or minimizing any potential risks for each of the more than minimal risk 
research procedures listed above. 
Not applicable, this study has no more than minimal risk 
b.  Where appropriate, discuss provisions for ensuring necessary medical or professional intervention in the event of adverse 
events, or unanticipated problems involving subjects. 
Not applicable, this study has no more than minimal risk  
c.  Will the safeguards be different between/among groups?   
Yes 
 
No 
Not applicable 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
Participation Among Clients of a Nonprofit Food Distribution Site. Clin Transl Sci. Oct 2015;8(5):584-90. 
doi:10.1111/cts.12325 
18. 
Leonard T, Andrews, D., Pruitt, S.L. Impact of changes in the frequency of food pantry utilization on 
client food security and well-being. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2021;44(2):1049-1067. 
doi:10.1002/aepp.13166 
19. 
Jain S, Shahan K, Bowen M, Pruitt SL. Dietary intake of individuals receiving SNAP and food pantry 
assistance in North Texas. Public Health Nutr. Mar 24 2022:1-15. doi:10.1017/S136898002200074X 
20. 
Lee SH, Moore LV, Park S, Harris DM, Blanck HM. Adults Meeting Fruit and Vegetable Intake 
Recommendations - United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Jan 7 2022;71(1):1-9. 
doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7101a1 
21. 
Haynes-Maslow L, Auvergne L, Mark B, Ammerman A, Weiner BJ. Low-Income Individuals' 
Perceptions About Fruit and Vegetable Access Programs: A Qualitative Study. J Nutr Educ Behav. Jul-Aug 
2015;47(4):317-324.e311. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.03.005 
22. 
Long CR, Rowland B, Steelman SC, McElfish PA. Outcomes of disease prevention and 
management interventions in food pantries and food banks: a scoping review. BMJ Open. Aug 21 
2019;9(8):e029236. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029236 
23. 
Eicher-Miller HA. A review of the food security, diet and health outcomes of food pantry clients and 
the potential for their improvement through food pantry interventions in the United States. Physiol Behav. 
Jun 1 2020;220:112871. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.112871 
24. 
Sharpe KM, Staelin R. Consumption Effects of Bundling: Consumer Perceptions, Firm Actions, and 
Public Policy Implications. J Public Policy Mark. 2010;29(2):170-188. doi:10.1509/jppm.29.2.170 
25. 
Moran AJ, Khandpur N, Polacsek M, et al. Make It Fresh, for Less! A Supermarket Meal Bundling 
and Electronic Reminder Intervention to Promote Healthy Purchases Among Families With Children. J Nutr 
Educ Behav. Apr 2019;51(4):400-408. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2019.01.012 
26. 
The Insight Partners. Ready-to-Eat Food Market to 2028 by Demand, Trends & Growth. 2022:163. 
https://www.theinsightpartners.com/reports/ready-to-eat-food-market/ 

Form A 
IRB # 
STU  2022-0809 
 
11 
V2Mar2018 
27. 
Mathew P. A Survey to Assess Kitchen Equipment and Tool Ownership among Food Pantry Clients. 
UT Southwestern Medical Center; 2019.  
28. 
Dunmire M. Level of Satisfaction Among Food Pantry Clients, Staff/Volunteers, and Directors and its 
Association with Client Choice in Food Pantry Layouts South Dakota State University; 2019.  
29. 
Ares G, Vidal, L. Measuring Liking for Food and Drink. In: Meiselman HL, ed. Handbook of Eating 
and Drinking. Springer Nature; 2020:235-256. 
30. 
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of 
reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research. 
2017;17(1)doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 
31. 
Adjoian TK, Firestone MJ, Eisenhower D, Yi SS. Validation of self-rated overall diet quality by 
Healthy Eating Index-2010 score among New York City adults, 2013. Prev Med Rep. Jun 2016;3:127-31. 
doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.01.001 
32. 
Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. May 
2009;36(5):452-7. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 
33. 
Crichton GE, Howe PR, Buckley JD, Coates AM, Murphy KJ, Bryan J. Long-term dietary intervention 
trials: critical issues and challenges. Trials. Jul 20 2012;13:111. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-111 
34. 
Central Texas Food Bank. Our Solutions. Accessed June 3rd, 2022. 
https://www.centraltexasfoodbank.org/learn-more/solutions