MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2626926510 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4393-6

Food insecurity and food consumption by season in households with children in an Arctic city: a cross-sectional study

2017· article· en· W2626926510 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine Huët, James D. Ford, Victoria L. Edge, Jamal Shirley, Nia King, Sherilee L. Harper

Notice bibliographique

RevueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Établissements canadiensUniversity of GuelphPublic Health Agency of CanadaNunavut Research InstituteNunavut Arctic CollegeMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing EnvironmentsArcticNetInternational Development Research CentreMcGill University
Mots-clésFood securityEnvironmental healthFood insecuritySocioeconomic statusBiostatisticsMedicineConsumption (sociology)Cross-sectional studySocioeconomicsDemographyEpidemiologyAgricultureGeographyPopulationEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

High rates of food insecurity are documented among Inuit households in Canada; however, data on food insecurity prevalence and seasonality for Inuit households with children are lacking, especially in city centres. This project: (1) compared food consumption patterns for households with and without children, (2) compared the prevalence of food insecurity for households with and without children, (3) compared food consumption patterns and food insecurity prevalence between seasons, and (4) identified factors associated with food insecurity in households with children in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada. Randomly selected households were surveyed in Iqaluit in September 2012 and May 2013. Household food security status was determined using an adapted United States Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey Module. Univariable logistic regressions were used to examine unconditional associations between food security status and demographics, socioeconomics, frequency of food consumption, and method of food preparation in households with children by season. Households with children ( n = 431) and without children ( n = 468) participated in the survey. Food insecurity was identified in 32.9% (95% CI: 28.5–37.4%) of households with children; this was significantly higher than in households without children (23.2%, 95% CI: 19.4–27.1%). The prevalence of household food insecurity did not significantly differ by season. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the person responsible for food preparation, including low formal education attainment (OR Sept = 4.3, 95% CI: 2.3–8.0; OR May = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.8–5.8), unemployment (OR Sept = 1.1, 95% CI: 1.1–1.3; OR May = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5), and Inuit identity (OR Sept = 8.9, 95% CI: 3.4–23.5; OR May = 21.8, 95% CI: 6.6–72.4), were associated with increased odds of food insecurity in households with children. Fruit and vegetable consumption (OR Sept = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.8; OR May = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2–0.9), as well as eating cooked (OR Sept = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–1.0; OR May = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9) and raw (OR Sept = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9–3.0; OR May = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.0–3.1) fish were associated with decreased odds of food insecurity among households with children, while eating frozen meat and/or fish (OR Sept = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.4–5.0; OR May = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1–3.7) was associated with increased odds of food insecurity. Food insecurity is high among households with children in Iqaluit. Despite the partial subsistence livelihoods of many Inuit in the city, we found no seasonal differences in food security and food consumption for households with children. Interventions aiming to decrease food insecurity in these households should consider food consumption habits, and the reported demographic and socioeconomic determinants of food insecurity.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,800
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,142
Tête enseignante GPT0,419
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations45
Publié2017
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBMC Public HealthMême sujetIndigenous Studies and EcologyTravaux en français237 207