Assignment 6: Research Analysis of SNAP Incentive Program

This assignment analyzes a research article from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, focusing on a study titled "Facilitators and Barriers to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Incentive Use: Findings From a Clinic Intervention for Low-Income Patients." The study, employing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, investigates the acceptability and impact of a primary care-based informational intervention on the use of Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB), a SNAP incentive program. The research involved focus groups with SNAP-enrolled adults to understand their perspectives on DUFB use, facilitators, and barriers. The assignment addresses key aspects of the research, including the research question, literature review, conceptual framework, sampling strategy, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, data collection and analysis methods, ethical considerations, and study limitations. The analysis also assesses the rigor, major themes, and the researchers' interpretation of the data. The study's findings are critically evaluated, and a comparison is made between the qualitative methods employed and quantitative research approaches. The assignment provides an overall assessment of the article's strengths and weaknesses, contributing to a deeper understanding of public health research methodologies and the challenges of promoting healthy food choices among vulnerable populations.

Assignment 6 Template
# Questions Answers Points
1. Title of article, Journal name, and your name Facilitators and Barriers to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Incentive
Use: Findings From a Clinic Intervention for Low-Income Patients
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Student Name:
4
2. What is the research question (purpose)
addressed in this study?
The aim of the study is to understand the lack of knowledge and
comprehension limits in the usage of DUFB and other incentives for SNAP 1
and also to evaluate the real motives of respondents to use DUFB, facilitators
/ obstacles of DUFB application, and acceptability of intervention
5
3. Has a literature review been undertaken? Does
it provide a good and balanced background of
the research issue?
The research paper does not consist any specific part named background or
literature review. However, the discussion part is full of literature review which
are relevant to the study. The discussion section also plays a role of
background of the research study.
5
4. Has a conceptual or theoretical framework been
identified? Is it adequately described? 5
5. What is the research design used? explanatory sequential mixed methods design 5
6. What type of sampling strategy was used? phenomenal variation sampling 5
7. What were the eligibility criteria for the study? The surveyed respondents had not used DUFB before or DUFB was never
used during the research time or only one time used DUFB or DUFB has
been used by them several times.
A racially / ethnically mixed sample collection with small incomes
5
8. Are key characteristics of the sample described
(e.g., age, gender)?
Female, aged between 33-52, with a median 45.5, mostly Single or divorced
or separated or widowed, unemployed, poor or disable. 5
9. Were the participants suitable for informing
research?
Yes 2
10. Were the participants fully informed about the
nature of the research?
Participants submitted a written informed consent form. A standard consent
form contain all the information about study. 2
11. Was ethical permission granted for the study? The study was ethically approved by University of Michigan Medical School
IRB (Cohen et al., 2019) (Roberts, 2015)
.
2
12. What data collection strategies were used? Are
they adequately described?
A questioner is produced which is a quantitative method was used in thiss
study for data collection. 5
13. Were interviews audio-recorded and
transcribed?
Groups were interviewed in English, taken 60−75 minutes, and the interviews
were audio recorded (Cohen et al., 2019)
.
5
14. What data analysis strategies were used? The data were transcribed verbatim and deidentified using Dedoose, version
7.0.23. the transcripts were also analyzed by the application of conventional
5

content analysis (Cohen et al., 2019)
15. Was data saturation achieved? There were several different type of answer get from different people. Some
of them give same answer of a particular question, whereas some of them
gave new informational data. So, no data saturation were found (Fusch &
Ness, 2015).
5
16. Did the authors discuss how rigor was assured? The rigor was found in the limitation section as study's drawbacks involve
induction into a single health clinic; Absence of Spanish-speaking
target groups; survey was restricted to participants remaining 5 months in the
retrospective component of the study (Gnyawali, , & Song, 2016,Cohen et al.,
2019)
;
5
17. What major themes or processes emerged? Did
the results answer the research question(s)?
The research fulfilled the aim of the research (Cohen et al., 2019)
. 5
18. If excerpts from the data are provided, do the
themes appear to capture the meaning of the
narratives, i.e., did the researcher adequately
interpret the data and conceptualize the themes
or categories?
There are two tables in the research paper. All the tree have adequate data
and clear structure to support the research as well as to make the audience
understand what the table is about and why it is inserted in the research
paper. The table no 1 give the overview of the participants characteristics,
table 2 is elaborate themes which are supported by the quotes of the target
sample. The tables are self elaborating giving a vivid idea about what it is
justifying or trying to sate. The data were then interpreted and they are
conceptualized in the result section. Standard tools were used to do so. The
data are then discussed vividly in the discussion section (Cohen et al., 2019)
.
5
19. Were credibility, dependability, transferability
and goodness discussed? See Ryan et al.
article for definitions.
The research paper have a proposed aim, methodology, appropriate data
collection, maintains ethical standards, have reference based review and
support and well elaborate discussion supported by reference and conclusion.
Therefor, the research paper has all the credibility.
The research paper is a peer reviewed paper and include ample of standard
references proving its dependability. However, the paper lacks any specific
criteria for different aspect discussion and the goodness or relevance is not
discussed elaborately (Brown, 2015 , Cohen et al., 2019)
.
5
20. What were the study limitations? The study limitation includes location based limitation, as the recruitment was
in single room of a heath center, there was no enough Spanish speaking or
understanding people.
5
21. What is your overall assessment of the article? Overall the study is an appropriate study with a understandable and well-
detailed title. The author bibliography and the journal is reliable. The abstract
section give a overview of the study. The introduction section is well defined
and incorporate the relevance and background of the study. There are well
discussed methodology, techniques and discussion part that give a clear idea
5

about the found result and the interpretation. The limitation section form a
niche a future research by highlighting the gaps of the study as well as
interpret the success of the study. The conclusion section was gist, ambiguity
free and give the overall idea about the finding, the interpretation and the
conflict between the authors hypothesis and found result (Cohen et al., 2019,
Heale & Twycross, 2015)
.
22. What is your overall assessment/impression of a
qualitative methods article compared to the other
quantitative articles you read? (2-3 sentences)
Quantitative studies are represented in numerical values and graphs. It is
used for examining of a hypotheses and theories, or verifying them.
Qualitative research expresses itself in words. The application of it is mainly
to understand ideas, concepts or interactions (Cohen et al., 2019, Barnham,
2015)
.
5

References:
Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research: Perceptual foundations. International Journal of Market Research, 57(6), 837-854.
Brown, J. D. (2015). Characteristics of sound quantitative research. Shiken, 24.
Cohen, A. J., Oatmen, K. E., Heisler, M., Hesterman, O. B., Murphy, E. C., Zick, S. M., & Richardson, C. R. (2019). Facilitators and barriers to Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program incentive use: findings from a clinic intervention for low-income patients. American journal of preventive medicine, 56(4),
571-579.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 20(9), 1408.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Song, Y. (2016). Pursuit of rigor in research: Illustration from coopetition literature. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 12-22.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-based nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
Roberts, L. D. (2015). Ethical issues in conducting qualitative research in online comm
unities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(3), 314-325.