Food-related worry and food bank use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: results from a nationally representative multi-round study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly one in five adults in Canada worried about having enough food to meet their household's needs. Relatedly, throughout the pandemic, public messaging repeatedly urged Canadians to support food charities, including food banks. Yet few studies have examined food bank usage during the pandemic or whether food charities were widely used by Canadians worried about food access. METHODS: This study draws on four rounds of nationally representative surveying conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic between May 2020 and December 2021 among adults 18 years and older living in Canada. Descriptive statistics were used to examine rates of food-related worry during all four survey rounds. Data from the fourth survey round, collected in December 2021, were used to explore use of food-based community programs since the onset of the pandemic, including food banks. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine differences in socio-demographic and health-related characteristics between adults who did and did not report accessing food banks before and after adjusting for household income. RESULTS: Across survey rounds (n = 12,091), more than one in seven participants reported stress or worry related to having enough food to meet their household's basic needs in the previous two weeks. Yet, by December 2021, fewer than 4% of participants reported ever accessing a food bank during the pandemic. Younger age, living with a child, financial concerns due to the pandemic, two different measures of food worry, pre-existing mental health conditions, disability, LGBT2Q + identity, and racialized or Indigenous identity, were each statistically significantly associated with higher odds of using food banks even when controlling for household income. CONCLUSIONS: Despite persistently high rates of food-related worry in 2020 and 2021 in Canada, relatively few adults reported accessing food banks or other charity-based community food programs. While respondents facing social, financial, and health-related inequities and reporting food worry were more likely to use food banks, most respondents did not report food bank use, regardless of financial or demographic circumstances or experiences of food worry. Findings align with previous research indicating that more adequate and comprehensive supports are needed to alleviate food-related-worry in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".