Food insecurity in three socially disadvantaged localities in Sydney, Australia

• Published in: Health promotion journal of Australia 2006-12, Vol.17 (3), p.247-253
• Main Authors: Nolan, Michelle, Rikard-Bell, Glenys, Mohsin, Mohammed, Williams, Mandy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cross-Sectional Studies; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Diet - Economic aspects; Female; food insecurity; Food security; Food Supply; Forecasting; health promotion; Humans; Hunger; Logistic Models; Male; measurement; Middle Aged; New South Wales; nutrition; Nutrition - Economic aspects; Nutrition Surveys; Nutritional Status; Poverty; Poverty - Australia; Prevalence; Slums; social disadvantage; Social Environment; Socioeconomic Factors; Statistics; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vulnerable Populations
• ISSN: 1036-1073; 2201-1617
• DOI: 10.1071/HE06247

Issue addressed: Food insecurity, now listed among the social determinants of health, compromises the health and wellbeing of affected Australians. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of food insecurity within an urban population of social disadvantage in readiness for a local health promotion response. Methods: This was a cross sectional survey conducted in three disadvantaged locations of southwestern Sydney. Prevalence of food insecurity was assessed using both the 16 item US Household Food Security Survey Module and the single item question previously used in national Australian health surveys. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to determine associations between food insecurity and sociodemographic characteristics of the households. Results: The 16 item US tool yielded a significantly higher food insecurity prevalence (21.9%, 95% CI 20.0-23.8) than the single item Australian tool (15.8%, 95% CI 14.1-17.5). Compared with the former, the single item Australian tool has high specificity (96%) yet low sensitivity (56.9%). In our three sites, food insecurity was strongly and independently associated with household capacity to save money (AOR=5.05). Local fruit and vegetable production (83.8%), nutrition education (83.9%), transport to food outlets (81.5%) and better public transport overall (76.3%) were most highly rated by 'food insecure' households as useful future strategies. Conclusion: The higher sensitivity of the US 16 item food security survey module relative to the single item Australian tool indicates its potential for use in future Australian surveys of food insecurity. (author abstract)