The Association between Food Security and Store-Specific and Overall Food Shopping Behaviors
The Association between Food Security and Store-Specific and Overall Food Shopping Behaviors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jand.2017.02.007
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Sharpe, Patricia A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ma, Xiaonan;Liese, Angela D.;Sharpe, Patricia A.
背景食品安全在美国是一个严重的问题。很少有研究探讨其与食品购物行为的关系。目的本研究旨在探讨低收入社区居民的食品安全与商店特定和整体食品购物之间的关联。设计我们进行了一项横断面研究。参与者/设置从2013年11月至2014年5月在南卡罗来纳州的两个县招募了527个家庭，主要结果测量采用美国家庭粮食安全模块问卷（US-Household Food Security Module，18项）对粮食安全进行评估，并将其分为高或边缘粮食安全（FS）、低粮食安全（LFS）和极低粮食安全（VLFS）三类。商店特定的购物行为，包括频率，商店类型，和交通是通过亲自采访的三个最常光顾的杂货店查询。从参与者的家到他们报告的商店的距离使用地理信息系统进行计算。统计分析使用多变量线性回归分析的距离和频率和多项/普通逻辑回归分析的商店类型和运输。VLFS参与者中有相当高比例的人将便利店/一元店作为他们最常光顾的商店（比值比[OR] 2.31，95% CI 1.08至4.95）或缺乏运输（OR 2.04，95% CI 1.25至3.33）。他们在第三常去的商店购物的频率也较低（B =-0.31，P =0.03），购物的总里程也较少（B =-4.71，P =0.04）。在分析中考虑所有商店联合，LFS参与者有较低的几率在超市和便利店/一元店（OR 0.44，95%CI 0.21至0.91）相比，食品安全residents.Conclusions目前的研究结果表明，VLFS的家庭往往更频繁地在商店购物，有不太健康的选择，如便利店/一元店。这些调查结果为正在进行的旨在改善粮食不安全人口获得粮食的社区和政策干预提供了支持。
Background Food security is a severe problem in the United States. Few studies have examined its relationship with food shopping behaviors.Objective This study aimed to examine the association between food security and store-specific and overall food shopping among residents of low-income neighborhoods.Design We conducted a cross-sectional study.Participants/setting Five hundred twenty-seven households were recruited from two counties in South Carolina from November 2013 to May 2014, and 474 households were included in the final analysis.Main outcomes measures Food security was assessed using the 18-item US-Household Food Security Module questionnaire, and classified into three categories: high or marginal food security (FS), low food security (LFS), and very low food security (VLFS). Store-specific shopping behaviors including frequency, store type, and transportation were queried via in-person interview for the three most-frequented grocery stores. Distance from participants' homes to their reported stores was calculated using Geographic Information Systems.Statistical analyses Multivariate linear regression for analyses of distance and frequency and multinomial/ordinary logistic regression for analyses of store type and transportation were used.Results Compared to FS participants, a significantly higher proportion of VLFS participants reported a convenience/dollar store as their most-frequented store (odds ratio [OR] 2.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.95) or a lack of transportation (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.33). They also shopped less frequently (b =-.31, P =0.03) at their third most-frequented store and traveled fewer total miles for shopping (b = -4.71, P =0.04). In analyses considering all stores jointly, LFS participants had lower odds of shopping at both supermarkets and convenience/dollar stores (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.91) compared to food-secure residents.Conclusions The current findings suggest that households with VLFS tend to shop more frequently in stores that have less-healthful options, such as convenience/dollar stores. These findings lend support to ongoing community and policy interventions aimed at improving food access among food-insecure populations.