HD: Food Security (2011)
To explore issues of food insecurity and insufficiency within an urban Latino and predominantly immigrant population.
As part of a larger study on ethnic Latino differences in health and nutrition attitudes and behaviors and child health services use, participants:
- Lived in one of three Chicago community areas (West Town, Humboldt Park and Logan Square) with greater than 30% Latino population
- Had a child aged four to eight years, entering school for the first time.
Incomplete or invalid interviews were excluded.
Recruitment
- Communities were selected based on their Latino population
- Schools which had at least 30% Latino population were used to recruit families of students entering school for the first time.
Design
Face-to-face survey interviews were used to collect data for this cross-sectional study:
- Cornell/Radimer scale of food insufficiency
- Marin acculturation scale.
- ANOVA
- Chi-square.
Timing of Measurements
Participants were interviewed once for this study in the year 2000.
Dependent Variables
- Food insufficiency per the Radimer/Cornell scale
- Health status of child as reported by mother
- Food assistance, child nutrition and emergency food program use.
Independent Variables
Demographics (including age, education, years in US, birthplace, household size and age of child).
Control Variables
Not applicable.
Initial N
354 women.
Attrition (Final N)
320 women caregivers.
Age and Ethnicity
- Mexican and other Hispanic (78%); mean age, 32.3±6.1 years
- Puerto Rican (22%); mean age, 33.1±7.3 years.
Other Relevant Demographics
- Education: Mexican and other, 8.8±3.5; Puerto Rican, 12.2±3
- US residence in years: Mexican and other, 11.3±6.4; Puerto Rican, 18.4±12
- Birthplace in US (or continental US): Mexican and other, 5.5%; Puerto Rican, 46%
- Mean household size: Mexican and other, 5.1±1.5; Puerto Rican, 4.2±1.5
- Mean age of target child: Mexican and other 5.48±1.09; Puerto Rican, 5.68±1.39.
Location
Chicago, Illinois area.
Key Findings
30% of respondents said they 'sometimes' or 'often' do not have enough to eat. This was slightly more prominent in Puerto Rican respondents.
Of these:
- 84% of these respondents said they 'sometimes' or 'often' worried about food running out before they had money to buy more
- 90% said they worried whether the food they could afford would be enough for their family
- 32% reported their child was sometimes hungry, but they couldn't afford more food
- 6% reported they or their child had skipped a meal yesterday due to lack of food
- 5% reported that there were days they or their child didn't eat at all due to lack of food.
Other Findings
- No significant difference between perceived food-sufficient and perceived food-insufficient families for length of time living in the US, the number of household moves in the past five years, mother's employment status, acculturation level or housing type
- 23% of mothers of children in food-insufficient households reported them to be in fair or poor health
- Most families consumed predominantly traditional Mexican or Puerto Rican foods regardless of food sufficiency status.
- The prevalence of food insufficiency among Latino families was greater than previously reported on a national level (30% vs. 8.2%)
- Only 30% of low income food insufficient families were Food Stamp participants, although 90% of the children received school meals, indicating there is a need for better screening and outreach for low-income immigrant Latino families.
Government: | HRSA/MCHB Grant MCJ 17080 |
- Strengths: Excellent participation rate with interviews conducted by bi-lingual, bi-cultural interviewers
- Weaknesses: All data is self-reported.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | N/A | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | N/A | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | Yes | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | Yes | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | N/A | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | N/A | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | No | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | No | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | N/A | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | Yes | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | Yes | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | N/A | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |