4.5 Article

Functional limitation and chronic diseases are associated with food insecurity among US adults

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 182-188

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.01.005

关键词

Chronic disease; Poverty; Health status disparities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study examined associations of functional limitation due to any health problems and six chronic diseases (arthritis, diabetes, coronary heart disease, heart attack, hypertension, and stroke) with food security among U.S. adults. Methods: The 2011 National Health Interview Survey data for 30,010 adults (>= 18 years) were used. Adults were categorized into food secure, low food secure, or very low food secure. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for having functional limitation and chronic diseases while adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Results: The prevalence of functional limitation and the chronic diseases were higher in low-food-secure and very low-food-secure than food-secure adults. The adjusted ORs were significant in both low food secure and very low food secure, respectively, for functional limitation (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.63, 2.14), (OR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.91, 2.52), inflammatory diseases or joint/muscular pain (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.21, 1.68), (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.49, 2.04), diabetes (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.51), (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.48), and hypertension (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.04,1.35), (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.22,1.65) when compared with food-secure adults. Conclusions: Findings indicate that food insecurity is associated with functional limitation and chronic diseases, whereas directionality is unknown. Besides the traditional food assistance program for food insecure populations, interventions to prevent or manage chronic diseases may be necessary to help them reduce the risk of the diseases and manage their conditions. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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