Food Is Medicine programs give healthy food and nutrition help to people who struggle to afford groceries. But many of these programs don’t use proven behavior-change strategies. Researchers looked at a program that delivered fresh produce and nutrition education to pregnant women at risk. They showed how using behavioral science—the study of why people make the choices they do—can make these programs work better. By understanding what motivates people and removes barriers to healthy eating, programs can be designed to actually change habits and improve health outcomes for moms and babies.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether using behavioral science theory helps design better food assistance programs for pregnant women
  • Who participated: A Food Is Medicine program serving high-risk pregnant mothers who struggle with food insecurity (not enough access to healthy food)
  • Key finding: Programs that use behavioral science frameworks—specifically Social Cognitive Theory—can better structure their services, explain how change happens, and improve real-world results
  • What it means for you: If you’re involved in designing or running food assistance programs, using behavioral science can make them more effective. This approach helps programs address the real barriers people face and motivate lasting behavior change

The Research Details

This article presents a case study, which means researchers examined one specific Food Is Medicine program in detail to understand how it works. The program was built using Social Cognitive Theory, a behavioral science framework that explains how people learn, make decisions, and change their behavior based on their environment, what they believe about themselves, and their past experiences.

The program had three main parts: delivering fresh produce to homes, providing nutrition education, and offering support from community health workers (people from the community trained to help others). Researchers looked at how these components work together to help pregnant women improve their food security, eating habits, and pregnancy health.

This approach is different from many other food programs because it intentionally uses behavioral science to explain why each part of the program should work and how it connects to real health improvements.

Most food assistance programs focus on what they deliver (food, education) but don’t explain the science behind why these things should change behavior. By using behavioral science theory, programs can be clearer about their goals, better understand what might stop people from succeeding, and measure whether they’re actually working. This makes programs stronger and helps them use resources more effectively.

This is a perspective article and case study, which means it presents ideas and examines one example rather than testing the program with a large group of people. While it doesn’t provide statistical proof that the program works better than others, it offers valuable guidance for how programs should be designed. The approach is grounded in established behavioral science theory, which strengthens its credibility.

What the Results Show

The case study shows that when a Food Is Medicine program uses Social Cognitive Theory, it can organize its services in a way that makes sense scientifically. The program’s three components—home-delivered produce, nutrition education, and community health worker support—each address different barriers that pregnant women face.

Home delivery removes the barrier of transportation and time. Nutrition education builds knowledge and confidence about healthy eating. Community health worker support provides encouragement and helps overcome personal and social obstacles. Together, these parts work on multiple levels: they improve access to food, build skills and confidence, and create social support—all things that behavioral science says are important for changing eating habits.

The framework also helps explain how these changes lead to better outcomes: better food security and eating habits should lead to healthier pregnancies and better birth outcomes. This clear connection between what the program does and what it hopes to achieve makes it easier to measure success and improve the program over time.

Using behavioral science also helps programs identify which parts are most important and where to focus resources. It clarifies that simply giving people food isn’t enough—they also need education, support, and help overcoming barriers. The case study suggests that programs work best when they address multiple factors at once rather than just one thing.

Many existing food assistance programs have been designed based on what seems logical rather than behavioral science. This article calls for a shift in how programs are created and evaluated. It aligns with growing evidence that behavior-change programs work better when they’re grounded in scientific theory. The approach builds on decades of research showing that people’s choices are influenced by their knowledge, confidence, environment, and social support.

This is a case study of one program, so we can’t say these findings apply to all Food Is Medicine programs or all populations. The article doesn’t include data showing that this program actually produces better results than programs not using behavioral science. To prove that behavioral science frameworks truly improve outcomes, researchers would need to compare similar programs—some using the framework and some not—and measure the results. The article is a call for change and a demonstration of how it could work, rather than proof that it does work.

The Bottom Line

If you work in food assistance, nutrition, or maternal health: Consider using behavioral science frameworks like Social Cognitive Theory when designing programs. This means thinking about knowledge, confidence, environment, and social support as you plan services. Confidence level: High for program design; moderate for predicting outcomes without further testing.

Program designers and managers in food assistance, public health, and maternal health should care about this. Pregnant women and families struggling with food insecurity may benefit from programs designed this way. Healthcare providers working with food insecurity should understand this approach. Policymakers deciding how to fund food programs should consider this evidence.

Behavioral changes typically take weeks to months to develop. Improvements in food security might be seen within weeks of receiving services. Changes in eating habits usually take 4-12 weeks to become established. Pregnancy outcomes depend on when in pregnancy the program starts and how long it continues.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track weekly produce intake (servings of fruits and vegetables per day) and food security status (whether you had enough food to eat). Simple yes/no or 1-5 scale ratings work well.
  • Use the app to set one specific eating goal (like adding one extra vegetable serving daily), receive education tips matched to your goals, and log your progress. Connect with a support person through the app for accountability.
  • Weekly check-ins on produce intake and confidence in healthy eating. Monthly reviews of overall food security and dietary quality. Track barriers you encounter and solutions that work, building a personal resource library over time.

This article presents a framework for designing food assistance programs and is not medical advice. Pregnant women should work with their healthcare provider about nutrition and food security. If you’re struggling to afford food, contact your local food bank, WIC program, or SNAP benefits office for assistance. The findings are based on a case study of one program and have not been tested with a large comparison group. Always consult healthcare professionals before making significant dietary changes during pregnancy.