Natália Miranda Jung1, Fernanda Souza de Bairros2, Marcos Pascoal Pattussi3, Sílvia Pauli1, Marilda Borges Neutzling1. 1. 1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Rua Ramiro Barcelos 2400,2º andar,CEP 90035-003,Santana/Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil. 2. 2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva,Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,Porto Alegre,RS,Brasil. 3. 3Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva,Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos,Cristo Rei/São Leopoldo,RS,Brasil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present review aimed to identify and synthesize literature on household food insecurity with respect to whether the respondent was male or female. DESIGN: A systematic review of prevalence studies followed by a meta-analysis was conducted between 28 August 2014 and 19 October 2014 in seven electronic databases. The search was updated in April 2016. The included studies used experience-based measures to assess household food insecurity. Dichotomous measures of food insecurity were used. Pooled odds ratios of household food insecurity prevalence in women v. men were obtained through random-effect modelling. Quality assessment, publication bias diagnostics and subgroup analysis were also performed. SETTING: Population-based studies (i.e. non-clinical populations). SUBJECTS: Participants aged 18 years or over. RESULTS: Out of the 5145 articles initially identified, forty-two studies with a total population of 233 153 were included. In general, results showed that the odds for household food insecurity was 40 % higher in studies where women were the respondent (95 % CI 1·27, 1·54; P<0·001). Besides, subgroup analysis revealed that female-headed households were 75% (95 % CI 49-96%) more likely to be food insecure than male-headed households. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the existence of gender differences in reporting household food insecurity. Furthermore, they indicate that households headed by women constitute a segment of the population that is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.
OBJECTIVE: The present review aimed to identify and synthesize literature on household food insecurity with respect to whether the respondent was male or female. DESIGN: A systematic review of prevalence studies followed by a meta-analysis was conducted between 28 August 2014 and 19 October 2014 in seven electronic databases. The search was updated in April 2016. The included studies used experience-based measures to assess household food insecurity. Dichotomous measures of food insecurity were used. Pooled odds ratios of household food insecurity prevalence in women v. men were obtained through random-effect modelling. Quality assessment, publication bias diagnostics and subgroup analysis were also performed. SETTING: Population-based studies (i.e. non-clinical populations). SUBJECTS:Participants aged 18 years or over. RESULTS: Out of the 5145 articles initially identified, forty-two studies with a total population of 233 153 were included. In general, results showed that the odds for household food insecurity was 40 % higher in studies where women were the respondent (95 % CI 1·27, 1·54; P<0·001). Besides, subgroup analysis revealed that female-headed households were 75% (95 % CI 49-96%) more likely to be food insecure than male-headed households. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the existence of gender differences in reporting household food insecurity. Furthermore, they indicate that households headed by women constitute a segment of the population that is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.
Authors: Kelsey A Vercammen; Alyssa J Moran; Amanda C McClain; Anne N Thorndike; Aarohee P Fulay; Eric B Rimm Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nan Dou; Dixin Xie; Xiang Gao; Natalia Palacios; Luis M Falcon; Katherine L Tucker; Muzi Na Journal: J Nutr Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Wendy M Troxel; Ann Haas; Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar; Andrea S Richardson; Lauren Hale; Daniel J Buysse; Matthew P Buman; Jonathan Kurka; Tamara Dubowitz Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Stacy Tessler Lindau; Jennifer A Makelarski; Kelly Boyd; Kate E Doyle; Sadia Haider; Shivani Kumar; Nita Karnik Lee; El Pinkerton; Marie Tobin; Milkie Vu; Kristen E Wroblewski; Ernst Lengyel Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Henry J Whittle; Lila A Sheira; William R Wolfe; Edward A Frongillo; Kartika Palar; Daniel Merenstein; Tracey E Wilson; Adebola Adedimeji; Kathleen M Weber; Adaora A Adimora; Ighovwerha Ofotokun; Lisa Metsch; Janet M Turan; Eryka L Wentz; Phyllis C Tien; Sheri D Weiser Journal: J Nutr Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.687
Authors: Flora Douglas; Fiona MacKenzie; Ourega-Zoé Ejebu; Stephen Whybrow; Ada L Garcia; Lynda McKenzie; Anne Ludbrook; Elizabeth Dowler Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Judy Y Tan; Lila A Sheira; Edward A Frongillo; Deborah Gustafson; Anjali Sharma; Daniel Merenstein; Mardge H Cohen; Elizabeth Golub; Andrew Edmonds; Igho Ofotokun; Margaret Fischl; Deborah Konkle-Parker; Torsten Neilands; Phyllis Tien; Sheri D Weiser Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 6.707
Authors: Henry J Whittle; Lila A Sheira; Edward A Frongillo; Kartika Palar; Jennifer Cohen; Daniel Merenstein; Tracey E Wilson; Adebola Adedimeji; Mardge H Cohen; Adaora A Adimora; Ighovwerha Ofotokun; Lisa Metsch; Janet M Turan; Eryka L Wentz; Phyllis C Tien; Sheri D Weiser Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 7.256