Social Vulnerability and Child Food Insecurity in Developed Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food insecurity (FI) is a serious public health concern in economically developed countries, mainly due to unequal resource distribution. Identifying social vulnerability factors [i.e., characteristics of a person or group regarding their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the effects of child FI (CFI)] and their positive or negative relationship with CFI is important to support targeted action with a scale and intensity that is proportionate to the level of disadvantage. This review aimed to systematically and comprehensively identify key social vulnerability contributors to CFI in economically developed countries and discuss the factors in the context of the socio-ecological model. Five research databases were searched for observational studies published in 2000 assessing social vulnerability factors related to FI in children residing in developed countries. Data screening and extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers who recorded factors related to CFI. The QualSyst tool was used to assess risk of bias. From the studies identified (N = 5689), 49 articles, predominantly from the United States and Canada, met the inclusion criteria. The identified social vulnerability factors associated with CFI were grouped into 5 based on the socio-ecological model: 1) individual child, 2) parental, 3) household, 4) community, and 5) societal factors. The most frequently reported contributors to CFI were income (household factor). Other social vulnerability factors were identified, including the child's age, parental depression, household crowdedness, social connection, poverty, and residential instability. The lack of consistent measures to define both social vulnerability and CFI in diverse population subgroups impeded meaningful pooling and interpretation of factors interacting with CFI. Recommendations for future studies are to use comparable measures to estimate the extent and severity of CFI and to investigate the relation between social vulnerability, severity, and trajectories of CFI in developed countries. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022291638.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".