Hanson, Karla L.Volpe, Leah C.Kolodinsky, JaneHwang, GraceWang, WeiweiPitts, Stephanie B. JilcottSitaker, MarilynAmmerman, Alice S.Seguin, Rebecca A.2020-04-172020-04-172019-12-06http://hdl.handle.net/10342/8231Data were collected in August, amid the summer CSA season, when shares include many of the summer FV preferred by low-income caregivers and their children [33], which may have contributed to the magnitude of the differences in children’s FV consumption that we observed. Because resources to support the CO-CSA were limited and offsets were awarded on a first-come first-served basis, and because almost all KABs were equivalent for purchaser and non-purchaser sub-groups, selection bias into the purchaser sub-group is an unlikely explanation for differences observed between CO-CSA purchasers and non-purchasers. [...]the inclusion of some CO-CSA applicants who participated in a longitudinal study regarding CO-CSA may have biased upwards estimates of KAB and self-efficacy with respect to FV consumption in the applicant sample. [...]although selection of adults into the comparison group used similar eligibility criteria, they were not comparable to CO-CSA applicants who were older, more educated, and more often lived in food-secure households. [...]sample sizes were too small to permit exploration of observed associations in a multivariate context that controlled for key sample differences such as age, educational attainment, or self-efficacy for eating and cooking FV. 5.fruits and vegetables; dietary quality; local food; community-supported agriculture (CSA); low-incomeArticle10.3390/nu11061320