Homeownership status and risk of food insecurity: examining the role of housing debt, housing expenditure and housing asset using a cross-sectional population-based survey of Canadian households
Homeownership status and risk of food insecurity: examining the role of housing debt, housing expenditure and housing asset using a cross-sectional population-based survey of Canadian households
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12939-019-1114-z
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-06
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Tarasuk, Valerie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fafard St-Germain, Andree-Anne;Tarasuk, Valerie
家庭粮食不安全是物质匮乏的一个有力标志，具有不良健康后果。研究一再发现，在加拿大和其他地方，拥有住房与较低的粮食不安全风险之间存在着强烈而独立的关系，但人们对这种关系的原因知之甚少。我们的目的是研究住房资产、住房债务和住房支出对加拿大住房所有权状况与粮食不安全之间关系的影响。方法粮食不安全、住房使用权和支出、房屋价值、收入和社会人口特征的横断面数据来自2010年家庭支出调查，这是一项基于人口的调查。使用多变量logistic回归模型来估计所有收入家庭（n = 10,815）和收入较低家庭（n = 5547）的粮食不安全的优势比。结果市场租房者的粮食不安全患病率最高（28.5%），其次是有抵押贷款的房主（11.6%）和无抵押贷款的房主（4.3%）。有抵押贷款的房主（OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68）和没有抵押贷款的房主（OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.35）与市场租房者相比，调整后的粮食不安全几率要低得多，而且考虑住房成本负担对该协会的影响最小。与有抵押贷款的房主相比，无抵押贷款的房主在食品不安全方面的调整比值比更低，但住房成本负担的差异完全解释了这一关联。当根据抵押贷款和住房资产水平对房主进行分层时，与住房资产较低的抵押贷款持有人相比，市场租房者的粮食不安全调整优势比并不显著。拥有较高住房资产的无抵押业主最不容易受到食品不安全的影响（调整后比值比：0.18,95%置信区间：0.11-0.27）。结论不同住房拥有状况和住房资产水平的家庭在粮食不安全方面存在较大差异。支持住房所有权同时确保可负担抵押贷款的住房政策对于缓解粮食不安全可能很重要，但需要采取政策行动来解决租房者对粮食不安全的高度脆弱性。
Background Household food insecurity is a potent marker of material deprivation with adverse health consequences. Studies have repeatedly found a strong, independent relationship between owning a home and lower vulnerability to food insecurity in Canada and elsewhere, but the reasons for this relationship are poorly understood. We aimed to examine the influence of housing asset, housing debt and housing expenditure on the relationship between homeownership status and food insecurity in Canada. Methods Cross-sectional data on food insecurity, housing tenure and expenditures, home value, income and sociodemographic characteristics were derived from the 2010 Survey of Household Spending, a population-based survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to estimate odds ratios of food insecurity among households of all incomes (n = 10,815) and those with lower incomes (n = 5547). Results Food insecurity prevalence was highest among market renters (28.5%), followed by homeowners with a mortgage (11.6%) and mortgage-free homeowners (4.3%). Homeowners with a mortgage (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68) and those without a mortgage (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.35) had substantially lower adjusted odds of food insecurity than market renters, and accounting for the burden of housing cost had minimal impact on the association. Mortgage-free homeowners had lower adjusted odds ratios of food insecurity compared to homeowners with a mortgage, but differences in the burden of housing cost fully accounted for the association. When stratifying homeowners based on presence of mortgage and housing asset level, the adjusted odds ratios of food insecurity for market renters were not significant when compared to mortgage holders with low housing asset. Mortgage-free owners with higher housing asset were least vulnerable to food insecurity (adjusted OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.11-0.27). Conclusions Substantial disparities in food insecurity exist between households with different homeownership status and housing asset level. Housing policies that support homeownership while ensuring affordable mortgages may be important to mitigate food insecurity, but policy actions are required to address renters' high vulnerability to food insecurity.