Exploration of the Relationship Between Household Food Insecurity and Diabetes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the household food insecurity (HFI) prevalence in Canadians with diabetes and its relationship with diabetes management, self-care practices, and health status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data from Canadians with diabetes aged >or=12 years (n = 6,237) from cycle 3.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey, a population-based cross-sectional survey conducted in 2005. The HFI prevalence in Canadians with diabetes was compared with that in those without diabetes. The relationships between HFI and management services, self-care practices, and health status were examined for Ontarians with diabetes (n = 2,523). RESULTS: HFI was more prevalent among individuals with diabetes (9.3% [8.2-10.4]) than among those without diabetes (6.8% [6.5-7.0]) and was not associated with diabetes management services but was associated with physical inactivity (odds ratio 1.54 [95% CI 1.10-2.17]), lower fruit and vegetable consumption (0.52 [0.33-0.81]), current smoking (1.71 [1.09-2.69]), unmet health care needs (2.71 [1.74-4.23]), having been an overnight patient (2.08 [1.43-3.04]), having a mood disorder (2.18 [1.54-3.08]), having effects from a stroke (2.39 [1.32-4.32]), lower satisfaction with life (0.28 [0.18-0.43]), self-rated general (0.37 [0.21-0.66]) and mental (0.17 [0.10-0.29]) health, and higher self-perceived stress (2.04 [1.30-3.20]). The odds of HFI were higher for an individual in whom diabetes was diagnosed at age <40 years (3.08 [1.96-4.84]). CONCLUSIONS: HFI prevalence is higher among Canadians with diabetes and is associated with an increased likelihood of unhealthy behaviors, psychological distress, and poorer physical 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".