Food security status of households in Appalachian Ohio with children in Head Start

ArticleinJournal of the American Dietetic Association 104(2):238-41 · March 2004with6 Reads
Impact Factor: 3.92 · DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2003.09.023 · Source: PubMed
Abstract

This study measured food security and hunger of households involved in Head Start in a rural Appalachian county and assessed factors that could affect food security and hunger. A convenience sample of households with children enrolled in the Head Start program in Athens County, Ohio, were sampled (n=710), with adults from 297 (42%) households responding. The survey instrument included the 18-question US Household Food Security Survey Module for measuring hunger and food insecurity. Of those responding, 152 households (51.2%) were food secure and 145 (48.8%) were food insecure. Ninety (30.3%) had experienced hunger in the previous 12 months, and 41 (13.8%) households were classified as food insecure with childhood hunger. Hunger was related to a variety of household characteristics and associated with several factors, including participation in food banks, dependence on family members and friends outside of the household for food, lacking reliable transportation, and not having a garden.

    • "Food-insecure households have difficulties meeting their nutritional needs, often reporting changes in dietary intake and quality (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2012). Food insecurity is a complex issue related to, among other things: (1) affordability in terms of price variations among food sources and price differences between processed food and fresh produce (Chung & Myers, 1999; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004; Gross & Rosenberger, 2005; Hendrickson et al., 2006; Kozikowski & Williamson, 2009; Liese, Weis, Pluto, Smith, & Lawson, 2007), (2) accessibility in terms of transportation and distance to food stores (Apparicio, Cloutier, & Shearmur, 2007; Caraher, Dixon, Lang, & Carr-Hill, 1998; Garasky, Wright Morton, & Greder, 2004; Holben, McClincy, Holcomb, Dean, & Walker, 2004; Kaiser, 2012; Lopez et al., 2008; Short, Guthman, & Raskin, 2007; Wright Morton & Blanchard, 2007), and (3) availability of different types of food sources and food varieties, especially nutritionally dense foods (Apparicio et al., 2007; Chung & Myers, 1999; Cohen, Andrews, & Kantor, 2002; Freedman, 2008; Garasky et al., 2004; Lopez et al., 2008; Short et al., 2007; Zenk et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study addressed the extent to which county-level poverty, housing affordability, food store availability and access, and average SNAP benefits predict food affordability in Missouri counties using an Ordinary Least Squares regression model. Emphasis was given to the difference between rural and urban counties. Bivariate analysis shows food affordability differs significantly between rural and urban counties. Multivariate analysis reveals the important impact of poverty on food affordability, an impact that is more noticeable in rural households. Additionally, the importance of SNAP benefits is amplified for rural households, whereas access is significant in predicting food affordability for urban households.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Journal of Poverty
    0Comments 0Citations
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Millions of U.S. households experienced hunger in 2005 and millions more experienced food insecurity. Previous research indicates that low-wage work and little social support contribute to food insecurity. Research also suggests that individuals cope by finding alternate food sources and drawing on social support. Further, researchers have found that rural residents face difficulties that many urbanites do not, including lack of living-wage jobs, transportation, and nutrition assistance. However, rural dwellers may possess support they can leverage in difficult times. This study used mixed methods (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) to examine whether social support moderates the relationship between income and food insecurity and whether place of residence affects social support. First, a mail survey was conducted with a stratified random sample of Oregonians (n=343, 34.4% response rate). Subsequently, qualitative interviews (n = 25) were conducted with low-income or food insecure survey respondents to provide insight into these issues. Quantitative results indicate that lower income respondents were more likely to experience food insecurity. In general, social support did not moderate the relationship between income and food insecurity. When income was categorized using poverty guidelines, however, results suggested that emotional support, social network support, and organization membership may moderate this relationship. Specifically, respondents with incomes of _<$19,999 were less likely to experience food insecurity in the presence of this support. However, small sample sizes in the _<$19,999 income category resulted in unstable estimates of odds ratios (e.g., 4136.79). When income was recategorized to remedy this, the moderation disappeared. Additionally, place of residence had a significant association with only one social support measure, social network density. Rural respondents had less dense social networks than urban respondents. Place of residence was not a significant predictor of amount of social support via multivariate analysis. Several food insecurity contributors emerged from the qualitative study phase including ill health, unemployment, and having other expenses. Participants cited coping strategies such as use of alternate food sources, use of nutrition assistance, and drawing on social support. Although few significant quantitative results were found, qualitative findings suggest that developing nutrition interventions that build social support may lead to reduced food insecurity. Printout. Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 191-212).
    Preview · Article ·
    0Comments 3Citations
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Food security is defined in its most basic form as access to adequate, safe and nutritious food required for healthy and active life by all people at all times. Availability of food and access are two essential determinants of food security. A number of factors such as income, educational level, household sizes are known to affect household food security. Food insecurity, hunger and poverty are closely linked. The level of poverty in Nigeria is high and the percentage of food insecure households in Nigeria was reported to be 18% in 1986 and over 40% in 1998, the level in 2005 is not known. This study was therefore designed to assess the food security status of households in some selected local government areas in two of the large cities (Lagos and Ibadan) in Nigeria. A previous administration of this module suggested that food security is associated with income and the households studied here have steady and definable income. The study therefore was undertaken to describe the food security status of households headed or managed by teachers employed in secondary and primary, public and private schools. The study was descriptive and cross-sectional in design with a sample size of 482 households that were selected using random sampling techniques. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire (USDA 18-Question Household Food Security Questionnaire Module). Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means and standard deviation were employed in the analysis of the data. The results obtained from the study show that the prevalence of food security (26 per cent) in teachers` households in both Lagos and Ibadan was low and the food security status of the teachers` household in Lagos was better (p< 0.05) than of households in Ibadan. The results of the study also identified income status and the educational status of the household head to influence the food security in those households. A household food insecurity of over 70% in this study is unacceptably high.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2006 · Pakistan Journal of Nutrition
    0Comments 33Citations
Show more

Similar publications