Food insecurity in adults with mood disorders: prevalence estimates and associations with nutritional and psychological health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because little is known about food insecurity in people with mental health conditions, we investigated relationships among food insecurity, nutrient intakes, and psychological functioning in adults with mood disorders. METHODS: Data from a study of adults randomly selected from the membership list of the Mood Disorder Association of British Columbia (n = 97), Canada, were analyzed. Food insecurity status was based on validated screening questions asking if in the past 12 months did the participant, due to a lack of money, worry about or not have enough food to eat. Nutrient intakes were derived from 3-day food records and compared to the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Psychological functioning measures included Global Assessment of Functioning, Hamilton Depression scale, and Young Mania Rating Scale. Using binomial tests of two proportions, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Poisson regression we examined: (1) food insecurity prevalence between the study respondents and a general population sample from the British Columbia Nutrition Survey (BCNS; n = 1,823); (2) differences in nutrient intakes based on food insecurity status; and (3) associations of food insecurity and psychological functioning using bivariate and Poisson regression statistics. RESULTS: In comparison to the general population (BCNS), food insecurity was significantly more prevalent in the adults with mood disorders (7.3% in BCNS vs 36.1%; p < 0.001). Respondents who were food-insecure had lower median intakes of carbohydrates and vitamin C (p < 0.05). In addition, a higher proportion of those reporting food insecurity had protein, folate, and zinc intakes below the DRI benchmark of potential inadequacy (p < 0.05). There was significant association between food insecurity and mania symptoms (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.37, 95% CI 1.49-3.75, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Food insecurity is associated with both nutritional and psychological health in adults with mood disorders. Investigation of interventions aimed at food security and income can help establish its role in enhancing mental health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".