TL;DR
Get health and wellness essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A randomized study of 67 food-insecure older adults in Buffalo found that 89.2% of participants in either home-delivery program prepared and consumed the delivered produce, compared with 28.3% in a voucher group that collected food at markets. Adding meal kits did not raise produce use beyond produce delivery alone. The results concern a small, local 12-week study and do not establish effects on long-term health.
Home delivery was linked to higher use of food prescriptions among food-insecure older adults in a 12-week University at Buffalo study: 89.2% of participants receiving delivered produce or meal kits prepared and consumed the food, compared with 28.3% of those given vouchers to collect produce at markets. The randomized trial involved 67 adults recruited in Buffalo; its findings were published in Frontiers in Public Health.
The study compared three approaches: weekly produce boxes delivered to participants’ homes, delivered meal kits containing produce and ingredients for three meals, and a standard program in which participants used vouchers at a mobile market or participating community markets. Each group made up about a third of the participants. Those in the produce-box group could customize their orders, while meal-kit participants could choose among five or six options each week.
Researchers defined redemption as preparing and consuming the delivered produce. By that measure, the two delivery groups each recorded a rate of 89.2%, while the market-voucher group recorded 28.3%. The study therefore found no additional improvement in produce use from providing meal kits alongside home delivery. According to the report, researchers suggested that participants’ familiarity with cooking produce may help explain why the kits did not raise use.
Participants were mostly African American adults over 65 recruited through primary care clinics at Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo. They had reported experiencing food insecurity at times. The trial was conducted over 12 weeks and compared the delivery programs with the local standard-of-care approach; it was not a large, multi-site study.
Delivery Removes a Redemption Barrier
The results point to a practical challenge for food prescription programs: a voucher can provide access to food in principle, but people still have to reach a place where it can be used. University at Buffalo associate professor and corresponding author Lucia A. Leone told Medical Xpress that transport needs and discomfort about being seen seeking help may limit participation when redemption takes place at food pantries or markets. Bringing food to participants’ homes may reduce those obstacles.
The difference in measured use is substantial within this trial, but it should not be read as proof that delivery will have the same effect everywhere. The study tested a particular local program with a small group over 12 weeks. It measured use of the delivered produce, not whether participants’ health improved over time. The findings may help program designers weigh the convenience of delivery against the costs and logistics of providing it.
Participants rated both delivery approaches above 9 out of 10 and said they would recommend the program, according to the report. The study also noted positive feedback about the delivery driver. Leone said a consistent, personable contact may support a program’s success, though the study does not isolate the effect of that relationship from the effect of delivery itself.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Vouchers Versus Delivered Food
Food prescription programs provide free or subsidized foods, often fruits and vegetables, to people facing food insecurity. The report says earlier research found that 9% to 18% of voucher recipients used their vouchers. That range is cited as prior research context; it is not a result from this Buffalo trial. In the study’s own voucher group, 28.3% met the researchers’ definition of redemption.
Leone and colleagues designed the randomized study to test whether home delivery could improve use compared with vouchers for a mobile market, and whether meal kits would prompt participants to use more produce. The delivery was the default, with customization available. The researchers’ report, “A randomized controlled study comparing three food prescription programs for older adults: program design, implementation, and utilization,” 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, corresponding author and University at Buffalo associate professor, as quoted by Medical Xpress
produce delivery boxes for older adults
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Far the Findings Extend
The trial included 67 people in one Buffalo-area setting and ran for 12 weeks. The report does not establish whether the results would hold for older adults in other communities, for larger programs, or for groups with different needs. Nor does the reported redemption measure show whether participants’ long-term diet, food security or health changed.
The study report says that the addition of meal kits did not improve produce use compared with produce delivery alone. It does not establish why the two delivery options performed similarly. Leone suggested participants may already have known how to prepare the foods, but that explanation is an interpretation rather than a separately tested finding. It is also unclear from the report what delivery would cost at larger scale, or how well customization could be maintained in programs serving many more people.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Researchers Plan a Family Trial
Leone and colleagues plan to conduct a similar study with families on Medicaid experiencing food insecurity, including households with children ages 2 to 6. The researchers will work with local pediatric practices. That study is intended to test food prescription delivery with a different population; the report does not give a start date or expected results date.
Further research could clarify whether delivery improves food security or health outcomes over a longer period, and whether similar participation rates can be achieved outside this local program. For now, the Buffalo study offers evidence about program use among older adults, while leaving cost, scale and longer-term effects unresolved.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What did the study find?
In a 12-week trial, 89.2% of participants in either home-delivery group prepared and consumed the produce, compared with 28.3% in the voucher group that collected food at markets.
Did meal kits increase produce use?
No additional increase was reported. Produce use was 89.2% in both delivery groups, whether participants received produce boxes or meal kits containing produce and ingredients.
Who took part in the trial?
The study included 67 adults, mostly African American and over 65, recruited through primary care clinics at Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo. Participants had reported experiencing food insecurity at times.
Does the study show that home delivery improves health?
The reported result concerns preparing and consuming delivered produce. The study does not establish long-term health effects or show that delivery improves health outcomes.
What research is planned next?
The University at Buffalo researchers plan a similar study with Medicaid families experiencing food insecurity who have children ages 2 to 6, in partnership with local pediatric practices. A timeline was not provided in the report.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
