Emilia H De Marchis1, Jacqueline M Torres2, Tara Benesch3,4, Caroline Fichtenberg5, Isabel Elaine Allen2, Evans M Whitaker6, Laura M Gottlieb5. 1. Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California Emilia.DeMarchis@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California. 3. University of California, San Francisco, California. 4. University of California, Berkeley, California. 5. Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, Center for Health & Community, University of California, San Francisco, California. 6. UCSF Medical Library, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Based on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health care- based FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI.
PURPOSE: Based on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health care- based FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI.
Authors: Alicia J Cohen; Caroline R Richardson; Michele Heisler; Ananda Sen; Ellen C Murphy; Oran B Hesterman; Matthew M Davis; Suzanna M Zick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ruth Rose-Jacobs; Maureen M Black; Patrick H Casey; John T Cook; Diana B Cutts; Mariana Chilton; Timothy Heeren; Suzette M Levenson; Alan F Meyers; Deborah A Frank Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Areej Hassan; Emily A Scherer; Aaron Pikcilingis; Emily Krull; LaQuita McNickles; Glenn Marmon; Elizabeth R Woods; Eric W Fleegler Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Mary E Morales; Michael H Epstein; Danelle E Marable; Sarah A Oo; Seth A Berkowitz Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Javier A Tamargo; Jacqueline Hernandez-Boyer; Colby Teeman; Haley R Martin; Yongjun Huang; Angelique Johnson; Adriana Campa; Sabrina S Martinez; Tan Li; Susan D Rouster; Heidi L Meeds; Kenneth E Sherman; Marianna K Baum Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Ingrid L Tablazon; Deepak Palakshappa; Faith C O'Brian; Brenda Ramirez; Joseph A Skelton; Laurie W Albertini; Kimberly G Montez Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 2.993