Impact of food insecurity with hunger on mental distress among community-dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Hunger frequently and persistently occur in older populations in low-income countries especially in sub-Sahara Africa. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between food insecurity with hunger and psychological distress among older people in Ghana.
METHODS: A total of 1200 individuals aged ≥50 years were recruited during 2016/2017 Ageing, Health, Psychological Well-being and Health-seeking Behavior Study. Associations between psychological distress (assessed with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) and hunger (assessed with a 30-day subjective scale) were evaluated using linear regression modeling.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of food insecurity was 36% with approximately 27% and 9% respectively for moderate and severe levels of hunger whilst the mean score of psychological distress was 9.5 (±4.10). Persons experiencing moderate hunger (β = 0.71, SE = 0.160, p < 0.001) and severe hunger (β = 1.81, SE = 0.280, p < 0.001) significantly reported increased psychological distress outcome compared to those without hunger. These associations varied between women (β = 1.59, SE = 0.359 p < 0.001) and men (β = 2.33, SE = 0.474, p < 0.001) as well as 50-64 age group (β = 1.48, SE = 0.368, p < 0.005) and 65+ age group (β = 2.51, SE = 0.467, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that experiencing hunger is associated with psychological distress and the effect may be aggravated with advancing age and in men. These findings may inform social policy initiatives and health programmatic interventions for older people exposed to food insecurity.

Introduction

Social and economic dynamics have been recognized as important factors in coping with stressful life course circumstances such as hunger and food insecurity [1-3]. However, this role has rarely been examined in relation to psychological distress in later life, even though older people are more at risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity and mental distress [4]. Given that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will be home to more than four in five older people by 2050 with concomitant mental-related infirmities [5], the risk of psychological distress may be greater following exposure to food insecurity in older age. It is, thus, imperative to understand the role of food insecurity with hunger in psychological health in later life.

Hunger has been theorized as a disquiet associated with an involuntary absence of food [6]. The Global State of Food Security and Nutrition report [1] indicates that more than 820 million people globally are hungry and the vast majority are older people residing in sub-Saharan Africa. This is, largely, due to multiple socioeconomic impacts such as financial vulnerabilities, lack of retirement protection and gradual breakdown of filial piety [5, 7] highlighting the mammoth challenge of triumphing the Zero Hunger target by 2030. The National Foundation to End Senior Hunger report shows that approximately one in six older Americans face the threat of hunger [8]. However, data on hunger in older age is almost non-existent in sub-Saharan Africa and Ghana in particular.

Studies have shown that the experience of being hungry or food insecure remains a major source of a wide-ranging lethal health outcomes including physical and mental health problems among the general population [9-11]. Focusing on mental problems, anxiety [12], depression [13], suicidal ideation [14-16] and cognitive impairment [17, 18] have be related to hunger/food insecurity. While the linkage between hunger and psychological distress is an emerging public health concern, there is a paucity of contemporary studies assessing this relationship among older populations in LMIC settings.

Previous studies show that men and women and specific age cohorts may differ in health and the mechanisms that predict their psychological state [5, 19]. The differential vulnerability thesis [20], indicates that gender and age differences exist in the vulnerability to social determinants of health such as hunger partly due to variant socioeconomic deprivations among genders and with advancing age. For example, compared to men and older age groups, women and younger age group respectively tend to invest in stronger constellation of social networks [19, 21] which can protect against stress and food insecurity and subsequently enhance their psychological wellbeing [22]. Yet, it is unclear how gender and age differences impact the association of hunger with psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate: 1) the effect of hunger on psychological distress in older age in Ghana, and 2) whether the associations of hunger with psychological distress are differentiated by gender and age. We hypothesize that persons exposed to hunger will display worse psychological distress (hypothesis 1). We also expect that the association between hunger and psychological distress will be marked in men and with advancing age (hypothesis 2).

Methods

The survey and sample

Data for this study came from an Aging, Health, Psychological Wellbeing and Health-seeking Behavior Study conducted in Ghana between July 2016 and February 2017. The larger, original study aimed at generating comprehensive data on socioeconomic, health and wellbeing profile of older people in Ghana and provided a basis for comprehensive analysis of many facets of aging in the LMICs. This was a probability-based sample consisting of adults aged ≥50 years. This eligibility criterion was developed given that chronological time has little or no relevance in conceptualizing old age in many parts of SSA [5]. Several recent gerontology studies have adopted the above categorization to define older people, including the Minimum Data Set project on aging and many other regional studies, such as the WHO’s SAGE study in LMICs, including Ghana [23].

A multi-stage stratified cluster sampling procedure was followed [24]. Details of selection procedure have been reported elsewhere [21, 22, 25–28]. Three sub-regional zones (based on their geographic uniqueness) were formed as strata and used as primary sampling units. Two districts were randomly selected from each sub-regional zone and delimited into rural and urban areas based on the Ghana Statistical Service’s [29] classification. The sample size was estimated, assuming 5% margin of error, 95% confidence interval, 1.5 design effect, 5% type 1 error, 15% type 2 error, and a default prevalence of 0.5. The required sample size was 901, but considering a 35% non-response, the final proposed sample size for this study was approximately 1219. The statistical power calculation revealed that the sample size had 85% power to detect an odds ratio of ≥2. In total, 1247 older persons were selected through systematic random sampling procedure. Of the 1247 approached, 1219 (97.8%) were eligible to participate but 19 of them declined yielding an overall participation rate of 98.4% (N = 1200).

The survey questionnaire was initially developed in English, translated into Asante Twi (the principal dialect in the study area) and back translated into English with reconciliation of discrepancies for quality control of the translation procedure following WHO translation guidelines for assessment instruments [30]. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using interviewer-administered questionnaire.

Ethic statement

Study protocol was approved by the Committee on Human Research Publication and Ethics, School of Medical Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana (Ref: CHRPE/AP/507/16). Ethics approval was also granted by the Research Ethics Committee of Lingnan University, Hong Kong, before interviews began. Study participants provided written informed consent, which was either signed or thumb-printed based on the choice of the participant, mainly based on their literacy levels, after briefing them on the research aims, procedures and the voluntary nature of their participation.

Assessment of variables

Psychological distress was the outcome variable The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to assess non-specific psychological distress, composed of items measuring psychological and physiologic symptoms of anxiety and depression in the previous four weeks [31]. This scale was developed as a screening tool for psychological distress in the general population. Each item has five response scale: 1) none of the time, 2) a little of the time, 3) some of the time, 4) most of the time, and 5) all of the time. Total score of the K10 ranges from 10 (no distress) to 50 (severe distress). Studies have shown that the K10 is psychometrically valid and appropriate for use in indigenous and general populations in SSA and Ghana [32].

The key exposure variable of interest, hunger was assessed with the item “During the past 30 days, how often did you go hungry because there was not enough food in your home?” The item was scored on a five-point response scale 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always. We transformed the response options into 0 = never/rarely (no food insecurity), 1 = sometimes (moderate food insecurity), 2 = most of the time/always (severe food insecurity) [33]. Whilst moderate food insecurity often suggests a compromised quality and quantity of food consumed, severe food insecurity has been described as reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns particularly in later life [16].

The analysis adjusted for a number of potential confounders which have been reported to link both psychological distress and food insecurity in low-income settings [25, 34]. These included age (in years), gender, household size, level of education, employment status, income levels (in Cedis), rural/urban residence, marital status, social support, self-rated health, functional status, chronic conditions, alcohol intake, and physical activity.

Age was a continuous variable and also categorized into middle age (50–64 years) and older age (≥65 years). Gender was treated as a dummy variable with 1 if female and 0 if otherwise. Spatial residence was dichotomous with 1 if urban and 0 if otherwise. Marital status, recoded from four original responses (married/ cohabiting, divorced/separated, widowed, never married) was put into two categories: 1 if unmarried and 0 if married. Education reflected three schooling levels: 0 = never/basic, 1 = secondary, 2 = higher. Employment status was dichotomized into 1 if employed, and 0 if otherwise, while household income and household size were scored as continuous variables. We assessed social support with frequencies of contact with family or close friends and social participation.

Self-rated health was assessed with an item asking respondents to self-rate their health with a five-point response scale: 1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair and 5 = poor which were later collapsed into four-options. Chronic conditions were assessed with a question, “Did a doctor or health professional ever told you that you had…?” The list of conditions included hypertension, diabetes, respiratory diseases, cancers, stroke, chronic kidney diseases, asthma, arthritis, depression and insomnia. Functional status was assessed on level of performance of five-item of activities of daily living (ADL) that are required to take care of oneself such as bathing, toileting, eating, bathing and dressing and getting in and out of bed. These items were recorded on a four-point scale: 1 = not limited at all, 2 = less limited, 3 = somewhat limited, and 4 = much limited [35]. Alcohol use was assessed with a no/yes item if they consumed any drink that contained alcohol such as beer, hard wine, spirit, over the past 30 days.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were done using SPSS v.21.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). While univariate statistics were executed to contextualize the sample, we conducted bivariate associations between hunger and psychological distress outcome by Chi-squared test (results not shown) given the categorical state of variables. Multiple linear regressions were conducted to assess the associations between hunger and psychological distress in the pooled sample and also by gender- and age-specific groups. This was crucial because the risk factors of psychological distress have been noted to differ by gender and between mid-life and later-life [26].

Model 1 evaluated the crude association of hunger with psychological distress and Model 2 introduced an adjustment for potential confounders in the regression model. Because food insecurity levels may differ between rural and urban areas [34] we performed interaction analysis between geographical variation and food insecurity (spatial location × hunger) in further sensitivity analysis. We checked for multicollinearity by computing the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). In our analysis, none of the VIF scores exceeded the value of 2.5, indicating no multicollinearity. Beta values with robust standard errors were reported with p-value less than 0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the sample. Mean age was 66 years (SD = ±12) and the majority were women (63%, 95%CI: 95%CI: 60.5–66.0%). Most of the respondents were not married (57%), lived in urban areas (55%), were unemployed (86%) and had lower levels of education (86%). Incomes were generally low with an average of GH¢308 (US$59). Approximate average social support (6 [SD = ±2.7]), physical activity (9 [SD = ±4.4]) and functional impairment (14 [SD = ±5.1]) were reported. More importantly, moderate hunger (27%), and severe hunger (9%) were revealed. Psychological distress was significantly higher among those experiencing severe hunger compared to those without hunger (15.1% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001).

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of the study sample.

Variable		Valid N	(%)
Psychological distress score (mean score)		9.54	(±4.10)
Hunger
	Never/rarely (No food insecurity)	773	(64.4)
	Sometimes (Moderate food insecurity)	321	(26.8)
	Most of the time/always (Severe food insecurity)	106	(8.8)
Age (in years) (mean score)		66.15	(±11.85)
Women		759	(63.3)
Rural residence		540	(45.0)
Married		521	(43.4)
Household size (mean score)		6.47	(±5.25)
Employed		533	(44.4)
Income (in Ghana Cedis) (mean score)		308.18	(±338.89)
Level of education
	Primary/none	1034	(86.2)
	Secondary	104	(8.7)
	Higher	62	(5.2)
Social support (mean score)		6.10	(±2.68)
Alcohol intake		377	(31.4)
Physical activity (mean score)		8.75	(±4.43)
Self-assessed health
	Very good	239	(19.9)
	Good	369	(30.8)
	Fair	348	(29.0)
	Poor	244	(20.3)
Diagnosed of chronic conditions		636	(53.0)
Functionally impaired (mean score)		13.70	(±5.09)

The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to quantify non-specific psychological disorders [20]

Main regression models

Linear regressions (Table 2) revealed that hunger (food insecurity) was an independent predictor of psychological distress even after accounting for potential socioeconomic and health-related confounders. The initial crude analysis (Model 1) showed that compared to no hunger, moderate levels of hunger (β = 0.95, SE = 0.136, p < 0.001) and severe levels of hunger (β = 1.83, SE = 0.136, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased risk of psychological distress outcome. These associations persisted after full adjustment. In Model 2, moderate levels of hunger (β = 0.71, SE = 0.160, p < 0.001) and severe levels of hunger (β = 1.81, SE = 0.280, p < 0.001) significantly associated with increased psychological distress score compare to no hunger. In addition, age, not married, urban dwelling, lower social support and worsening SRH outcome significantly predicted psychological distress. In a confirmatory analysis, we evaluated the moderating role of spatial location in the association between food insecurity and psychological distress. However, the interaction analysis did not achieve statistical significance (results are not shown).

Table 2

The associations between food insecurity with hunger and psychological distress score (10–50): Multivariate pooled linear analysis.

Variable		Model 1		Model 2
		β	(SE)	β	(SE)
Hunger (ref: Never/rarely (no food insecurity)
	Sometimes (Moderate food insecurity)	0.946	(0.136)***	0.705	(0.160)***
	Most of the time/always (Severe food insecurity)	1.828	(0.244)***	1.813	(0.280)***
Age (in years)				-0.190	(0.007)**
Gender (ref: men)				0.149	(0.172)
Rural/urban residence (ref: rural)				-0.206	(0.148)
Marital status (ref: married)				0.637	(0.159)***
Household size				-0.005	(0.014)
Employment status (ref: unemployed)				-0.215	(0.161)
Income (in Ghana Cedis)				0.185	(0.178)
Level of education (ref: Primary/none)
	Secondary			-0.263	(0.263)
	Higher			-0.045	(0.315)
Social support (ref: high)				-0.109	(0.051)*
Alcohol intake (ref: no)				0.080	(0.167)
Physical activity (ref: no)				-0.230	(0.159)
Self-assessed health (ref: Very good)
	Good			-0.062	(0.209)
	Fair			0.283	(0.214)
	Poor			0.914	(0.243)***
Chronic conditions (ref: no)				0.155	(0.147)
Functionally impaired				0.270	(0.189)
Adjusted R2				0.212

Coefficients (β) are adjusted for clustering, and robust standard errors are presented in parentheses. The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to quantify non-specific psychological disorders [20]. Model 1 was adjusted for age and gender only; Model 2 was adjusted for all potential confounders.

***p < 0.001

**p < 0.005

*p < 0.05.

Gender- and age-based models

The gender- and age-wise estimations (Table 3) were performed to investigate any modifying roles of gender and age in the associations of hunger with psychological distress. In Table 3, the odds of psychological distress significantly increased across the levels of hunger for both genders but the effect was higher among men (severe levels of hunger: β = 2.32, SE = 0.474, p < 0.001) compare to women (severe levels of hunger: β = 1.59, SE = 0.359, p < 0.001). Moreover, psychological distress increased significantly in all age cohorts for those experiencing hunger but the magnitude of severe hunger was higher among ≥65+ age group (β = 2.51, SE = 0.467, p < 0.001), compared to those in 50–64 age cohort (β = 1.48, SE = 0.368, p < 0.005).

Table 3

The associations between food insecurity with hunger and psychological distress score (10–50): Multivariate gender- and age-based linear analysis.

		Gender				Age
		Women		Men		50–64 years		≥65 years
Variable		β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	(SE)	β	(SE)
Hunger (ref: Never/rarely (no food insecurity))
	Sometimes (Moderate food insecurity)	0.736	(0.198)***	0.747	(0.294)*	0.848	(0.221)***	0.506	(0.243)*
	Most of the time/always (Severe food insecurity)	1.594	(0.359)***	2.326	(0.474)***	1.478	(0.368)**	2.511	(0.467)***
Adjusted R2		0.211		0.249		0.214		0.244

Coefficients (β) are adjusted for clustering, and robust standard errors are presented in parentheses. All sub-group analyses were adjusted for age, gender, rural/urban locality, marital status, household size, employment status, income, level of education, social support, alcohol intake, physical activity, self-rated health, chronic conditions and functional impairment. The 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to quantify non-specific psychological disorders [20].

***p < 0.001

**p < 0.005

*p < 0.05

Discussion and conclusions

This study examined the association between food insecurity with hunger and psychological distress in older age and the possible modifying roles of gender, age and spatial location. The results showed that food insecurity plays a critical role in psychological health and quality of life, broadly, of older people in LMICs. After accounting for the theoretically relevant sociodemographic and health-related factors, food insecurity was positively associated with the risk of psychological distress in this nationally representative sample of low-income older people. The exposure to moderate and severe food insecurity in terms of hunger significantly increased the psychological distress score, providing evidence to support our hypothesis that experiencing hunger will display worse psychological distress in this population.

These results were consistent with a previous study in New Zealand reporting a strong relationship between food insecurity and psychological distress [36]. Despite that research on food insecurity and psychological distress is limited, our findings are similar to previous studies of adults, documenting associations between food insecurity and other major mental disorders including cognitive function [2, 15, 17]. Hadley et al. [37] observed that food insecurity and stressful life events were independently associated with high symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress among Ethiopian adults. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Frith & Loprinzi [17] found among older Americans that food insecurity was associated with poor cognitive function. Laraia and colleagues [38] found that food insecurity was not only positively associated with symptoms of depression but also with perceived stress, trait anxiety, and a stronger believe in chance affecting one’s life and inversely associated with self-esteem and mastery among expectant women. Among caretakers in rural Tanzania, Hadley & Patil [39] found a strong correlation between food insecurity and anxiety and depression. Leung et al. [40] have also reported a positive relationship of food insecurity with depression. To the best of our knowledge, the findings of the current study appear to be one of the few to present the association between food insecurity with hunger and psychological distress among older people in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although specific mechanisms linking food insecurity and psychological distress risk are complex, several hypotheses have been proposed. It has been shown that hunger and the concomitant poor nutritional intake may lead to an increase in stress, strains and body weight which are known modifiable risk factors for various mental instabilities including psychological distress [17, 41]. Further, food insecure older people may experience psychological distress as a result of lack of access to nutritious, affordable, culturally appropriate food and the inability to feed themselves and their families [36]. It has also been postulated that poor nutrition, stress, and shame in food insecurity may lead to increased risk for mental health problems [9, 12]. As a biological and psychosocial stressor, food insecurity, particularly with hunger, may potentially increase mental and psycho-emotional ill-health [42] particularly during older age.

Our finding that no significant spatial variations exist in the association between food insecurity and psychological distress is notable. This suggests that the severity of food insecurity and its impacts in later life may universally manifest across rural and urban divides [43]. However, consistent with our hypothesis, the association was differentiated by gender and age in the stratified models. Among persons in 65+ age group and men, exposure to severe hunger, especially, was highly related to psychological distress compared to those in the 50–64 age group and women respectively. Thus, this study sheds light on psychological distress, demographics and food insecurity in older-age, an under-explored topic in sub-Saharan Africa with expressive implications for the older population and the policies targeted at healthy aging paradigm. The observation of relative strength of odds suggests that the socioeconomic and health-related covariates explained more of the association between food insecurity and psychological distress in men and older age cohort than women and middle-aged group respectively.

Women generally present higher lifetime mental disorders than men [44]. Interestingly, our observation was contrary to this general assertion and, therefore, appears somewhat difficult to explain. Females tend to have stronger constellation of social networks and support [45] which may reduce the severity of food insecurity, and the associated impacts on psychological distress for women. Furthermore, women tend to report more often than men to feel loved and cared for [27] which can shield them from food insecurity-related mental problems. The age difference may relate well to increased vulnerabilities to brain functioning, a common phenomenon in older people, with the prevalence increasing with age particularly in low-income settings. Growing older reduces hippocampal volumes and this may increase exposure to psychological and cognitive deficits whilst considering the complexities of stressors such as food insecurity [46]. However, this finding is inconsistent with a study in New Zealand in which women had slightly higher odds of the association between food insecurity and psychological distress compared to men [36].

Some limitations of the present study should be recognized when interpreting the findings. Although food insecurity can be measured in a variety of ways, the current analysis was based on hunger and may not directly be comparable to other studies with other measures. Further, all items and measures were based on self-report which could possibly be subject to recall bias. Nevertheless, self-reporting may be the best and certainly most convenient way to capture subjective views. The cross-sectional data used may not include information on how food insecurity evolve over time and how the changes could influence psychological distress in later life. The likelihood of reverse causation deserves attention, given that previous studies have demonstrated that poor health may cause or intensify food insecurity [42]. For more powerful estimations, longitudinal measurements of food insecurity and mental distress indicators are needed to fully understand any potential association of these variables in aging population in Ghana and SSA generally. Despite these limitations, the current study expands previous research by showing how hunger adversely effects psychological distress of aging adults. The key strength lies in the use of a representative sample of unique low-income older people surveyed over a recent time period. Future research would benefit from interactively and longitudinally tracking how food insecurity relates to psychological distress in older age.

In conclusion, the findings emphasize that exposure to hunger and largely, food insecurity may heighten psychological distress risk in later life. Moreover, this association is remarkable in men and older age group. These findings add valuable insights to the scant but growing literature that points to the need to consider food insecurity interventions in the policy and applied programmatic efforts to reduce psychological distress and its attendant impacts among older people. Crucially, these initiatives should strongly tailor the gender- and age-specific approaches.

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-29744

Association between Food Insecurity and Psychological Disorders: Results of a Population-based Study in Old Age in Ghana

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gyasi

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

You should addres all the suggestions made by the reviewers, but in particular you should address the conceptual and methodological issues as well as to improve the quality of your discussion section.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by January 15, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Referee Report for “Association between Food Insecurity and Psychological Disorders...”

To the best of my knowledge, this topic hasn’t been addressed in an older population in a low-income country (LIC). As such, it can make a contribution. But, a few things which will dramatically shorten the length of the paper:

1. The paper takes far too long to get to its central point, namely that food insecurity can lead to psychological disorders among seniors in Ghana. The introduction should be about three paragraphs – why this is an issue, how this paper contributes to our understanding, and the central findings.

2. There is only one convincing measure of food insecurity, the first one the authors mention, the one they call “hunger”. The other two measures should be dropped insofar as they may measure very different things and, in particular, different things than what is usually meant by food insecurity. As an example, lots of people with sufficient financial resources do not eat breakfast.

3. The Discussion should concentrate on how this paper contributes to our understanding of the impact of food insecurity on psychological disorders in an LIC, in particular, for seniors. As is stands now, there is too much extraneous information provided.

Reviewer #2: I would argue that hunger and food insecurity are not “eating disorders”, and yet, the very first sentence of the paper speaks of eating disorders and its implications for mental health. This sets the stage for the reader, in a very different direction than the one the paper is aimed at. Eating disorders occur in the presence of abundant or sufficient food, not in its absence.

Even though the English Grammar and Syntax are, for the most part correct, the phrasing of the text tends to become cumbersome, at times, and some word-choices and verb forms, could gain precision. The manuscript would benefit from the review by a specialized editor, before resubmitting it.

It is not clear to this reader whether the data were collected freshly, and specifically, for the study being reported here, or whether they are secondary data collected in the context of a prior, broader, and longitudinal research program. It would perhaps be necessary to clarify this condition more explicitly.

The displays of results by histograms in Figures 1, 2, and 3, are either wrong, or they need a better description, in order to be understood correctly. The gray bars, at the right-hand side in every set of bars are labeled “Total”; however, if anything, they seem to represent an ‘average’ between the prevalence of “distressed” and “not distressed” participants, within a specific “food insecurity” condition. But, if this were the case, averaging percentages is not correct.

Another pair of equivocally equated terms in this manuscript are “psychological disorders” (PD) and “psychological distress”. The first category encompasses a wide range of psychopathological and psychiatric disorders; whereas, the second, involves only anxiety and depressive disorders, which are the kinds of disorders that were actually assessed. In spite of this, every time the initials PD are used, during the discussion, it refers to “psychological disorders”, not distress.

The lack of accuracy in the use of these two terms, lends itself to important distortions in the interpretation of results. Such distortions may provide grounds for a policy statement such as the one it was suggested, at the end of the paper, that providing food to the needy elderly might help solve the mental health problems of this population. Of course, if one provided food to the hungry, and gave certainty that food will continue to be available to them, their anxiety levels would decrease considerably; but, those who suffered from zchizophrenia or dementia whould hardly be alleviated. So, properly, it is not a matter of mental health.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Jan 2020

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Reviewer #1.

Referee Report for “Association between Food Insecurity and Psychological Disorders...”

To the best of my knowledge, this topic hasn’t been addressed in an older population in a low-income country (LIC). As such, it can make a contribution. But, a few things which will dramatically shorten the length of the paper:

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for these critical observations and positive comments on our manuscript.

1. The paper takes far too long to get to its central point, namely that food insecurity can lead to psychological disorders among seniors in Ghana. The introduction should be about three paragraphs – why this is an issue, how this paper contributes to our understanding, and the central findings.

Response: The introduction has been re-written and shortened taking into consideration the concerns of the reviewer.

2. There is only one convincing measure of food insecurity, the first one the authors mention, the one they call “hunger”. The other two measures should be dropped insofar as they may measure very different things and, in particular, different things than what is usually meant by food insecurity. As an example, lots of people with sufficient financial resources do not eat breakfast.

Response: Hunger has been captured as the only measure of food insecurity in the revised version of the paper. The other measures included initially, namely, breakfast skipping and timing of the first daily meal have been dropped.

3. The Discussion should concentrate on how this paper contributes to our understanding of the impact of food insecurity on psychological disorders in an LIC, in particular, for seniors. As it stands now, there is too much extraneous information provided.

Response: The discussion of the paper has been re-written to concentrate the explanation and implications of the main study findings. The strenuous issues and information have been removed.

Reviewer #2.

I would argue that hunger and food insecurity are not “eating disorders”, and yet, the very first sentence of the paper speaks of eating disorders and its implications for mental health. This sets the stage for the reader, in a very different direction than the one the paper is aimed at. Eating disorders occur in the presence of abundant or sufficient food, not in its absence.

Response: Thanks to the reviewer for this important observation and comment. In the revised manuscript, the entire introduction has been re-considered and therefore has taken care of these changes. We removed “eating disorders” from the manuscript altogether.

Even though the English Grammar and Syntax are, for the most part correct, the phrasing of the text tends to become cumbersome, at times, and some word-choices and verb forms, could gain precision. The manuscript would benefit from the review by a specialized editor, before resubmitting it.

Response: We have checked sections of the manuscript to rectify grammatical and typographical errors. Thorough proof reading and editing have been done throughout to correct these errors.

It is not clear to this reader whether the data were collected freshly, and specifically, for the study being reported here, or whether they are secondary data collected in the context of a prior, broader, and longitudinal research program. It would perhaps be necessary to clarify this condition more explicitly.

Response: This study forms part of a larger, original study that aimed at generating comprehensive data on socioeconomic, health and wellbeing profile of older people in Ghana and provided a basis for comprehensive analysis of many facets of aging in the LMICs. The variables in the current study were drawn from this larger study. This clarification has been provided in the revised version of the paper.

The displays of results by histograms in Figures 1, 2, and 3, are either wrong, or they need a better description, in order to be understood correctly. The gray bars, at the right-hand side in every set of bars are labeled “Total”; however, if anything, they seem to represent an ‘average’ between the prevalence of “distressed” and “not distressed” participants, within a specific “food insecurity” condition. But, if this were the case, averaging percentages is not correct.

Response: Figures 2 and 3 have been removed from the manuscript based on the first reviewer’s suggestion to drop breakfast skipping and timing of first daily meal as measures of food insecurity from the manuscript. While Figure 1 was checked to be correct, we have chosen to drop it too.

Another pair of equivocally equated terms in this manuscript are “psychological disorders” (PD) and “psychological distress”. The first category encompasses a wide range of psychopathological and psychiatric disorders; whereas, the second, involves only anxiety and depressive disorders, which are the kinds of disorders that were actually assessed. In spite of this, every time the initials PD are used, during the discussion, it refers to “psychological disorders”, not distress.

Response: We agree with the reviewer for the comment. The use of the term “psychological disorders” and “mental disorders” have all been removed in the revised manuscript. Instead, the term “psychological distress” has been used throughout the draft.

The lack of accuracy in the use of these two terms, lends itself to important distortions in the interpretation of results. Such distortions may provide grounds for a policy statement such as the one it was suggested, at the end of the paper, that providing food to the needy elderly might help solve the mental health problems of this population. Of course, if one provided food to the hungry, and gave certainty that food will continue to be available to them, their anxiety levels would decrease considerably; but, those who suffered from zchizophrenia or dementia would hardly be alleviated. So, properly, it is not a matter of mental health.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these observations and we appreciate this critical comment. We have used the “psychological distress” in all aspect of the manuscript.

Again, we would like to thank the Editor and the two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper to PloS One.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author

12 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-29744R1

Impact of Food Insecurity with Hunger on Mental Distress among Community-Dwelling Older Adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Gyasi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the language requirements made by the reviewer.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The revised version of the manuscript appropriately incorporates all my comments to the initial version. However, the new text still carries a some mishandling of the English language and a few verb-form errors.

For example, on page 5, last paragraph, second sentence, it is nor clear what is meant by "...self-reported diagnosis by a health profesional... " I presume that the participants' health condition can either be self-reported, or diagnosed by a health professional. AS I understood the sentence, health profesionals' self-reported diagnosis, necessarily refers to their own health condition, not to that of partricipants...

Passages like this one should be found and corrected

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Feb 2020

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Reviewer #2.

The revised version of the manuscript appropriately incorporates all my comments to the initial version. However, the new text still carries some mishandling of the English language and a few verb-form errors.

For example, on page 5, last paragraph, second sentence, it is not clear what is meant by "...self-reported diagnosis by a health professional... ". I presume that the participants' health condition can either be self-reported, or diagnosed by a health professional. As I understood the sentence, health professionals' self-reported diagnosis, necessarily refers to their own health condition, not to that of participants.

Passages like this one should be found and corrected

Response: Very many thanks to Reviewer #2 for this important observations and the comment on the English usage in the manuscript. The entire draft has been checked and edited thoroughly for grammar. Extensive proof reading and editing have been done to rectify grammatical errors.

I thank Editor and the reviewer for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper for a consideration by PloS One.

Yours sincerely,

Razak Gyasi

18 Feb 2020

Impact of Food Insecurity with Hunger on Mental Distress among Community-Dwelling Older Adults

PONE-D-19-29744R2

Dear Razak Mohammed Gyasi

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

16 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-29744R2

Impact of Food Insecurity with Hunger on Mental Distress among Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Dear Dr. Gyasi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Berta Schnettler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE