The Effectiveness of Food Insecurity Screening in Pediatric Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecure children are at increased risk for medical and developmental problems. Effective screening and intervention are needed. METHODS: Our purpose was to (1) evaluate the validity and stability of a single item food insecurity (FI) screen. (2) Assess whether use may lead to decreased FI. Part of a larger cluster randomized controlled trial, pediatric residents were assigned to SEEK or control groups. A single FI question (part of a larger questionnaire) was used on SEEK days. SEEK residents learned to screen, assess, and address FI. A subset of SEEK and control clinic parents was recruited for the evaluation. Parents completed the USDA Food Security Scale ("gold standard"), upon recruitment and 6-months later. Validity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) was calculated. The proportion of screened families with initial and subsequent FI was measured. Screening effectiveness was evaluated by comparing SEEK and control screening rates and receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits between initial and 6-month assessments. RESULTS: FI screen stability indicated substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa =0.69). Sensitivity and specificity was 59% and 87%, respectively. The PPV was 70%; NPV was 81%. SEEK families had a larger increase in screening rates than control families (24% vs. 4.1%, p<0.01). SEEK families were more likely to maintain SNAP enrollment (97% vs. 81%, p=0.05). FI rates remained stable at approximately 30% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A single question screen can identify many families with FI, and may help maintain food program enrollment. Screening may not be adequate to alleviate FI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".