4.7 Article

Eating behaviour of homeless people aged 35-40 in Warsaw

Journal

FOOD CONTROL
Volume 119, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107477

Keywords

Charitable food services; Eating behaviour; Homeless; Nutrition; Poverty

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the eating behavior of homeless people is significantly less healthy than those of people with a permanent residence, as they rarely pay attention to food hygiene and nutritional value. However, they add salt to meals less frequently and eat main meals regularly at the same time.
The aim of this study was to assess the eating behaviour of homeless people who make use of emergency shelters or charitable food services and to compare them to the practices of people with a permanent residence. The research was carried out in Warsaw using a questionnaire consisting 50 questions among 600 participants aged 35-40; 300 of them were homeless, and 300 had a permanent residence. The eating behaviour of homeless people were significantly less healthy than those of the permanent residents in almost all aspects. Moreover, homeless participants only rarely paid attention to: food hygiene, believed that diet could affect their health, attempted to eat a healthy diet or paid attention to the nutritional value of food. On the positive side, they added salt to meals during cooking less frequently than permanent residents, and they also ate their main meals regularly at the same time every day. Though it seems possible that these two healthy eating behaviour may result from the constraints arising from reliance on external food services. Healthy eating behaviour among the homeless were accompanied by: having the correct weight, being female, and originating from the capital city. The questionnaire developed for the study was validated as a simple and precise tool for assessing the eating behaviour of homeless people.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available