Food availability, accessibility and dietary practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-country survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perceived effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown measures on food availability, accessibility, dietary practices and strategies used by participants to cope with these measures. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional multi-country online survey between May and July 2020. We used a study-specific questionnaire mainly based on the adaptation of questions to assess food security and coping strategies from the World Food Programme's 'Emergency Food Security Assessment' and 'The Coping Strategy Index'. SETTING: The questionnaire was hosted online using Google Forms and shared using social media platforms. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1075 adult participants from eighty-two countries completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: As a prelude to COVID-19 lockdowns, 62·7 % of the participants reported to have stockpiled food, mainly cereals (59·5 % of the respondents) and legumes (48·8 %). An increase in the prices of staples, such as cereals and legumes, was widely reported. Price increases have been identified as an obstacle to food acquisition by 32·7 % of participants. Participants reported having lesser variety (50·4 %), quality (30·2 %) and quantity (39·2 %) of foods, with disparities across regions. Vulnerable groups were reported to be facing some struggle to acquire adequate food, especially people with chronic diseases (20·2 %), the elderly (17·3 %) and children (14·5 %). To cope with the situation, participants mostly relied on less preferred foods (49 %), reduced portion sizes (30 %) and/or reduced the number of meals (25·7 %). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted food accessibility and availability, altered dietary practices and worsened the food insecurity situation, particularly in the most fragile regions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".