Premium
Psychosocial and dietary factors associated with food assistance use: Baseline results from the Baltimore Healthy Stores study
Author(s) -
Gittelsohn Joel,
Suratkar Sonali,
Song HeeJung,
Sharma Sangita,
Evans Kira E,
Patel Kamal,
Anliker Jean A
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.20.4.a618-a
Subject(s) - psychosocial , medicine , obesity , food insecurity , demography , affect (linguistics) , gerontology , environmental health , psychology , food security , geography , agriculture , psychiatry , archaeology , communication , sociology
Obesity and diet‐related chronic diseases in the US disproportionately affect urban‐based minorities. While many urban minority residents are on food assistance (FA), little is known on how this relates to food use patterns and psychosocial factors. As part of the baseline data collection for the Baltimore Healthy Stores study, we surveyed 152 residents of East and West Baltimore at local community action centers (n=32), supermarkets (n=89) and corner stores (n=31) (79% female, 47% on FA, mean age 46 years). Respondents on FA were more likely to be unmarried (67% vs 44%, p= 0.0046), come from larger households (3.8 vs 2.3, p=<0.001), have more children <10 years of age (1.1 vs 0.2, p <0.001), have less education (13%>12 years vs 30%, p=0.001) and have household income less than $20,000 (78% vs 63%, p=0.04). There were no significant differences between FA and non‐FA in terms of food knowledge or food self efficacy scores; however food intention scores were lower among FA (14.4 vs 16.0, p=0.003). No significant differences were observed in number of food sources used (7.2 vs 6.5, p=0.17). FA respondents purchased several healthy foods, including 100% fruit juice (3.0 vs 1.8, p=0.05) and low sugar cereals (1.3 vs 0.6, p=0.04) more frequently than non‐FA respondents. However, FA had a higher prevalence of food insecurity (75 % vs 59%, p =0.03). Supported by USDA/FANRP and the Center for a Livable Future.