Feasibility and Effects of a Produce Prescription Program (PRx) in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Low Socioeconomic Status: A Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial.
Carmen A W Dietvorst, Zuzanna Zielinska, Raief Ahmadkhan et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This 3-month randomised controlled pilot trial in primary care in Rotterdam assessed the feasibility and potential effects of a produce prescription program in adults with type 2 diabetes, BMI > 25 kg/m² and low socioeconomic status. Thirty-five participants were included, with 17 allocated to weekly plant-based food boxes plus cooking workshops and educational support, alongside dietitian consultations; controls received usual care and the same consultations. Participants collected an average of 10.9 out of 12 food boxes (91%). Exploratory comparisons favoured the program for dietary intake, weight, BMI and physical quality of life, but showed no clear differences in glycaemic outcomes.
Key findings
- Participants collected an average of 10.9 out of 12 food boxes (91%) and attended 1.8 out of 3 workshops (59%).
- Among the 11 participants (69%) who completed the evaluation questionnaire, satisfaction scores ranged from 4.3 to 4.7 out of 5.
- Exploratory between-group comparisons favoured PRx for dietary intake, weight, BMI and physical quality of life; no clear differences were observed for glycaemic outcomes.
- Several favourable within-group dietary and anthropometric changes in the PRx group appeared to be maintained at 6-month follow-up.
Why it matters
Financial barriers can constrain healthy eating for people with type 2 diabetes and low socioeconomic status. This pilot suggests that providing plant-based foods with practical support can be delivered and was acceptable in this population, with preliminary signals in dietary, anthropometric and quality-of-life outcomes. The absence of clear glycaemic differences underscores that these potential benefits should not be assumed to translate into improved glucose outcomes.
What to keep in mind
This was a small pilot trial with exploratory efficacy comparisons; the abstract reports no clear glycaemic differences and does not provide quantitative between-group effect estimates.