INTRODUCTION: The validity of the explanations change over time according to the state of demographic, epidemiological and nutritional transitions. OBJECTIVE: Five methods were compared to establish t he magnitude of food insecurity and related variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-two households in Colombia were classified using five methods, including (1) the scale of perceptions of food safety (EPSA),(2) the Latin American and Caribbean scale (ELCSA), (3) the usual intake of energy from the head of household, (4) the usual consumption of energy of all members of the home, and (5) an algorithm based on consumption and status of children. Binomial regression established variables associated with food insecurity. RESULTS: Insecurity varied between 35.9% and 87.0%. According ELCSA and method 3, households with children have a lower risk of insecurity, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.90) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.96). Under the EPSA and ELCSA, increased insecurity is associated with nonpayment of utilities, 1.75 (95% CI: 1.23 to 2.28) and the head of household declared limited access to food, 1.48 (95% CI: 1, 20 to 1.68). Sporadic income was associated with the method 3, 1.34 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.53) and method 4, 1.32 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.52). Paying rent, 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.16), time spent in the municipality, 0.59 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.93) and not having sewer, 1.13 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.16) were associated with the food insecurity using method 5. CONCLUSIONS: Since the country has reliable information that is obtained routinely it is not relevant or useful to use these methods with the purpose of developing social policies.
INTRODUCTION: The validity of the explanations change over time according to the state of demographic, epidemiological and nutritional transitions. OBJECTIVE: Five methods were compared to establish t he magnitude of food insecurity and related variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-two households in Colombia were classified using five methods, including (1) the scale of perceptions of food safety (EPSA),(2) the Latin American and Caribbean scale (ELCSA), (3) the usual intake of energy from the head of household, (4) the usual consumption of energy of all members of the home, and (5) an algorithm based on consumption and status of children. Binomial regression established variables associated with food insecurity. RESULTS: Insecurity varied between 35.9% and 87.0%. According ELCSA and method 3, households with children have a lower risk of insecurity, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.90) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.96). Under the EPSA and ELCSA, increased insecurity is associated with nonpayment of utilities, 1.75 (95% CI: 1.23 to 2.28) and the head of household declared limited access to food, 1.48 (95% CI: 1, 20 to 1.68). Sporadic income was associated with the method 3, 1.34 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.53) and method 4, 1.32 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.52). Paying rent, 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.16), time spent in the municipality, 0.59 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.93) and not having sewer, 1.13 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.16) were associated with the food insecurity using method 5. CONCLUSIONS: Since the country has reliable information that is obtained routinely it is not relevant or useful to use these methods with the purpose of developing social policies.