Loading…
EXPLORING THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IMPACT OF THE SOCIAL PROTECTION POLICY “PROSOLI” AMONG ELDERLY BENEFICIARIES IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Background and objectives: Food security and nutritional well-being are important elements for elderly people living in social and economic vulnerable situations in the Dominican Republic. The present study aimed to compare food security and nutritional outcomes at household and individual level of...
Saved in:
Published in: | Annals of nutrition and metabolism 2017-10, Vol.71 (Suppl. 2), p.777 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Background and objectives: Food security and nutritional well-being are important elements for elderly people living in social and economic vulnerable situations in the Dominican Republic. The present study aimed to compare food security and nutritional outcomes at household and individual level of elderly beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the Dominican Republic social protection policy "Progresando con Solidaridad (PROSOLI)". Methods: A cross-sectional study of 335 elderly people (50% beneficiaries) was conducted to compare food security and nutritional outcomes in beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups. Data was collected from June-December 2016 in ten geographically-dispersed regions at national level in the Dominican Republic. The Latin America and the Caribbean Food Security Scale (ELCSA) and the food diversity index at household level were conducted. Data analysis included anthropometric, dietary intake and socio- demographic data and rand univariate parametric or non-parparametric statistical analyses using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney, t tests and proportional test. Results: Median age and interquartile range (iqr) of participants was 74.1(13.0) years; 51% were women. Sixty percent reported moderate or severe household food insecurity, however, the prevalence was significantly higher in non-beneficiaries (65%) compare to beneficiaries (55%) (Proportional test, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0250-6807 1421-9697 |
DOI: | 10.1159/000480486 |