Beyond convenience: Study reveals nutrition security benefits of meal kit services

06 Feb 2024 --- A recent pilot study addresses the rise of diet-related diseases among residents in communities vulnerable to low nutrition security. The results suggest that a combination of nutritious no-prep meals and meal kits provides adequate nutrition intervention strategies for pantry clients and could improve food security alongside dietary quality.

Nutrition Insight discusses the findings and implications with Dr. Kelseanna Hollis-Hansen, one of the study authors and assistant professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center School of Public Health in Dallas, Texas, US.

“Participants that received meal kits and no-prep meals reported significant improvements in food security and perceived diet quality,” she adds. “One of the goals of this study was to understand which meals our community members liked best, to allow us to tailor the options we provide in future studies or programs.”

Dr. Kelseanna Hollis-Hansen assistant professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center School of Public Health.The findings suggest nutritious meal kits and no-prep means as adequate nutrition intervention strategies of pantry clients and could potentially improve food security alongside dietary quality.

Prep or no-prep meals 
The study published in BMC Public Health included 66 adult participants, clients of a large food pantry in the Southern sector of Dallas. They received-days of meal kits or non-prep meals and filled in questionnaires throughout the trial.

“We found that self-reported hedonic liking of the meals improved over time among participants that received meal kits, while it decreased over time for people that received no-prep meals,” Hollis-Hansen explains. “Similarly, we found that while intervention satisfaction was high among both groups, participants that received meal kits had higher intervention satisfaction than participants that received no-prep meals.” 

Discussing the potential factors that might have influenced the questionnaire results, she points out that, “For one, our participants were predominantly Hispanic or Latino(a). Previous research has repeatedly shown that Hispanic and Latino(a) families are more likely to cook at home than other racial or ethnic groups. Therefore, preparing meal kits might have felt more comfortable and preferable for our community than reheating prepared meals.”

“For two, even though we offered 14 breakfast and 14 dinner options for participants to choose from, prepared meals may begin to feel monotonous if eaten as often as most medically tailored meal programs currently prescribe,” she adds.

Explaining participants’ no-prep meal consumption pattern, Hollis-Hansen gives examples stemming from the study team’s interactions at appointments with participants. “Participants liked taking no-prep meals for lunch or sending off with a spouse or child, but did not want to eat them for dinner.”

“One of the things we have proposed to study in a grant we have under review is using meal kits and nutritious no-prep meals concurrently, so families can benefit from both options when it fits best in their day – perhaps no-prep meals for lunch and meal kits for dinner. This would also add more variety and potentially make meals feel less monotonous.” 

In a recent interview with Nutrition Insight, research epidemiologist at the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Dr. Jessica Thomson, explained that there is a link between people’s levels of food and nutrition security and their dietary choices, with those of less secure people being more constrained.

Upcoming research
Hollis-Hansen comments that the research team “did not observe any differences by age, gender or existing health conditions, but that may be due to our small sample size.” 

“One might expect that people with existing health conditions that make food preparation more difficult, such as arthritis as one example, might prefer no-prep meals. This is definitely an area of interest for us in future studies.”

Hollis-Hansen addresses the specific nutritional benefits observed during the two-week intervention period, how these could contribute to the prevention or management of diet-related chronic diseases and plans for follow-up studies to assess the lasting impact of these interventions. 

“Our pilot was too short to mitigate adverse health conditions and outcomes associated with food insecurity, such as anemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and premature mortality.”

“If future studies show these interventions can make long-term improvements in food security and diet quality, it would reduce two of the major risks for developing chronic diseases or prevent worsening of diseases for those who may already be living with a diet-related chronic disease,” she continues.

“We can’t say if the observed improvements would last beyond the study period. We do have plans for follow-up studies and have three grants currently in review to expand on this work in different ways. One has a four-month follow-up, and two have a six-month follow-up, so we hope to have the opportunity to assess longer-term sustainability.”

By Milana Nikolova