4.6 Article

Food insecurity is associated with past and present economic disadvantage and body mass index

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 131, 期 11, 页码 2880-2884

出版社

AMER INST NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1093/jn/131.11.2880

关键词

food insecurity; economic disadvantage; body mass index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fears and experiences of food restriction influence eating behavior but the association between past and present economic disadvantage, food insecurity and body size is poorly understood. Therefore, we examined these associations in a nationwide, representative sample of 25- to 64-y-old Finnish men and women (n = 6506). The respondents were classified by their body mass index (BMI) into four groups: thin, normal, overweight and obese. Economic disadvantage was assessed by three indicators including low household income, unemployment during past 5 y and long-term economic problems in childhood. Food insecurity was assessed by five separate items concerning economic fears and experiences related to sufficient supply of food during the past 12 mo, and a combined scale in which those with affirmative responses to four to five items were classified as hungry. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted using both the BMI grouping and indicators of economic disadvantage as independent variables to predict food insecurity, controlling simultaneously for age, educational attainment and sex. The results showed that low household income, recent unemployment and economic problems in childhood were all predictors of food insecurity. Thin people were most likely to be hungry and showed most food insecurity in five separate items. In addition, obese people reported more buying cheaper food due to economic problems and fears or experiences of running out of money to buy food than did normal weight subjects. In conclusion, both past and present economic disadvantage is associated with various aspects of food insecurity. The association between food insecurity and BMI is curvilinear.

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

4.6
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