Daphne C. Hernandez , Bo Ra Kim , Fred P. Brooks , Craig Gundersen
{"title":"The association between hunger-coping economic tradeoffs and food insecurity among female recipients of charitable food assistance","authors":"Daphne C. Hernandez , Bo Ra Kim , Fred P. Brooks , Craig Gundersen","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Food insecurity is an indicator of well-being in the United States. A high proportion of recipients of charitable food assistance (CFA) are women and are often in charge of specific household managerial responsibilities (e.g., childcare, transportation). Consequently, they frequently face choices between paying for food and paying for other basic need(s). This study aims to examine which hunger-coping economic tradeoffs place females with at least one dependent child in the house and females without a dependent child in the house at risk for experiencing food insecurity. Data was collected at 10 Houston-area and 10-Atlanta-area food pantries in 2022 (N = 883). Using USDA cutoff criteria, households were considered food insecure based on ≥3 affirmative responses to the 18-item Food Security Scale Module. Hunger-coping economic tradeoff experiences were based on affirmative responses to whether anyone in the household ever had to choose between food and six basic needs (i.e. childcare, medicine/medical care, utilities, rent/mortgage, transportation, education). Covariate-adjusted logistic regression models were conducted to understand the relationship between six hunger-coping economic tradeoffs and food insecurity for the entire analytic sample and stratified by whether the female participant had a child in house. Standard errors in all regression models were corrected to account for multiple observations within a pantry. Adults, on average, were 55 years old (58% food insecure; 47% Hispanic; 42% black). Four hunger-coping economic tradeoffs were related to experiencing food insecurity. Economic tradeoffs between food and a) medicine/medical care and b) transportation elevated the likelihood of food insecurity, regardless of child status. Tradeoffs between food and childcare increased the risk for experiencing food insecurity among females with a dependent child. Deciding to pay between food and utilities was related to food insecurity experiences among females without a dependent child. Increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and eligibility along with programs to enhance resources related to medical care, transportation, childcare and utilities could help reduce food insecurity, especially among CFA recipients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 107733"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324005373","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Food insecurity is an indicator of well-being in the United States. A high proportion of recipients of charitable food assistance (CFA) are women and are often in charge of specific household managerial responsibilities (e.g., childcare, transportation). Consequently, they frequently face choices between paying for food and paying for other basic need(s). This study aims to examine which hunger-coping economic tradeoffs place females with at least one dependent child in the house and females without a dependent child in the house at risk for experiencing food insecurity. Data was collected at 10 Houston-area and 10-Atlanta-area food pantries in 2022 (N = 883). Using USDA cutoff criteria, households were considered food insecure based on ≥3 affirmative responses to the 18-item Food Security Scale Module. Hunger-coping economic tradeoff experiences were based on affirmative responses to whether anyone in the household ever had to choose between food and six basic needs (i.e. childcare, medicine/medical care, utilities, rent/mortgage, transportation, education). Covariate-adjusted logistic regression models were conducted to understand the relationship between six hunger-coping economic tradeoffs and food insecurity for the entire analytic sample and stratified by whether the female participant had a child in house. Standard errors in all regression models were corrected to account for multiple observations within a pantry. Adults, on average, were 55 years old (58% food insecure; 47% Hispanic; 42% black). Four hunger-coping economic tradeoffs were related to experiencing food insecurity. Economic tradeoffs between food and a) medicine/medical care and b) transportation elevated the likelihood of food insecurity, regardless of child status. Tradeoffs between food and childcare increased the risk for experiencing food insecurity among females with a dependent child. Deciding to pay between food and utilities was related to food insecurity experiences among females without a dependent child. Increases in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and eligibility along with programs to enhance resources related to medical care, transportation, childcare and utilities could help reduce food insecurity, especially among CFA recipients.
期刊介绍:
Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.