4.7 Article

Household food insecurity: Associations with at-risk infant and toddler development

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 65-72

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-3717

关键词

child development; infant; child; preschool; child nutrition; hunger; early intervention; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between household food security status and developmental risk in young children, after controlling for potential confounding variables. METHODS. The Children's Sentinel Nutritional Assessment Program interviewed (in English, Spanish, or Somali) 2010 caregivers from low-income households with children 4 to 36 months of age, at 5 pediatric clinic/emergency department sites (in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania). Interviews included demographic questions, the US Food Security Scale, and the Parents' Evaluations of Developmental Status. The target child from each household was weighed, and weight-for-age z score was calculated. RESULTS. Overall, 21% of the children lived in food-insecure households and 14% were developmentally at risk in the Parents' Evaluations of Developmental Status assessment. In logistic analyses controlling for interview site, child variables (gender, age, low birth weight, weight-for-age z score, and history of previous hospitalizations), and caregiver variables (age, US birth, education, employment, and depressive symptoms), caregivers in food-insecure households were two thirds more likely than caregivers in food-secure households to report that their children were at developmental risk. CONCLUSIONS. Controlling for established correlates of child development, 4- to 36-month-old children from low-income households with food insecurity are more likely than those from low-income households with food security to be at developmental risk. Public policies that ameliorate household food insecurity also may improve early child development and later school readiness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据