| Literature DB >> 32998712 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of food insecurity among adults over 65 in Canada is less than half of that among adults approaching 65, possibly due in part to the public pension universally disbursed from the age of 65. Given research associating food insecurity with higher risk of premature mortality, our objective was to determine the likelihood that food-insecure adults with incomes below the national median would live past 65 to collect the public pension.Entities:
Keywords: Canada; Food insecurity; Health; Mortality; Pension; Seniors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32998712 PMCID: PMC7528377 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09547-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Food insecurity level, based on CCHS 18-item questionnaire
| Status | Measurement | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Food-secure | Affirmed no item on either the 10-item adult food security scale or 8-item child food security scale | No report of income-related problems of food access. |
| Marginally food-insecure | Affirmed no more than 1 item on either scale | Some indication of worry or an income-related barrier to adequate, secure food access. |
| Moderately food-insecure | Affirmed 2 to 5 items on the adult scale or 2 to 4 items on the child scale | Compromise in quality and/or quantity of food consumed by adults and/or children due to a lack of money for food. |
| Severely food-insecure | Affirmed more than 5 items on the adult scale or more than 4 items on the child scale | Disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake among adults and/or children due to a lack of money for food. |
Sample characteristics by vital status at age 65
| Alive/censored by 65 | Died before 65 | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondents N | 48,705 | 2075 | 50,780 | |||
| Weighted population N | 21,239,400 | 730,500 | 21,969,800 | |||
| Covariates | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
| Household food insecurity status | ||||||
| Food-secure | 84.7 | 36.0 | 68.2 | 46.6 | 84.2 | 36.5 |
| Marginally food-insecure | 4.0 | 19.6 | 7.0 | 25.4 | 4.1 | 19.8 |
| Moderately food-insecure | 7.0 | 25.5 | 14.7 | 35.4 | 7.3 | 25.9 |
| Severely food-insecure | 4.3 | 20.2 | 10.3 | 30.3 | 4.5 | 20.6 |
| Demographic | ||||||
| Female | 54.1 | 49.8 | 40.1 | 49.0 | 53.7 | 49.9 |
| Age at interview (years) | 58.2 | 3.8 | 57.2 | 3.2 | 58.1 | 3.8 |
| Health | ||||||
| Number of chronic conditions | ||||||
| No chronic condition | 58.5 | 49.3 | 40.1 | 49.0 | 57.8 | 49.4 |
| 1 condition | 28.0 | 44.9 | 32.2 | 46.7 | 28.2 | 45.0 |
| 2 conditions | 10.4 | 30.6 | 17.9 | 38.4 | 10.7 | 30.9 |
| 3+ conditions | 2.5 | 15.5 | 8.1 | 27.3 | 2.7 | 16.1 |
| Missing | 0.6 | 7.9 | 1.5 | 12.4 | 0.7 | 8.1 |
| Smoker status | ||||||
| Never smoked | 29.5 | 45.6 | 16.4 | 37.1 | 29.1 | 45.4 |
| Former smoker | 45.8 | 49.8 | 36.2 | 48.0 | 45.5 | 49.8 |
| Current smoker | 24.6 | 43.1 | 47.4 | 49.9 | 25.3 | 43.5 |
| Alcohol consumption frequency last year | ||||||
| None | 45.7 | 49.8 | 39.5 | 48.9 | 45.5 | 49.8 |
| Once a year up to once a week | 25.5 | 43.6 | 33.8 | 47.3 | 25.8 | 43.8 |
| Twice a week up to dailya | 28.5 | 45.1 | 26.6 | 44.2 | 28.4 | 45.1 |
| Missinga | 0.2 | 4.9 | 0.1 | 4.2 | 0.2 | 4.9 |
| Socioeconomic | ||||||
| Household income below Low Income Measure (LIM) | 33.8 | 47.3 | 51.5 | 50.0 | 34.4 | 47.5 |
| Indigenous status | ||||||
| Non-Indigenous | 96.2 | 19.2 | 94.5 | 22.8 | 96.1 | 19.3 |
| Indigenous | 3.2 | 17.7 | 4.9 | 21.6 | 3.3 | 17.9 |
| Missinga | 0.6 | 7.7 | 0.7 | 7.8 | 0.6 | 7.7 |
| Homeownership | ||||||
| Renter | 27.5 | 44.7 | 48.8 | 50.0 | 28.2 | 45.0 |
| Homeowner | 72.3 | 44.8 | 51.4 | 50.0 | 71.6 | 45.1 |
| Highest education in household | ||||||
| High school incomplete | 11.4 | 31.8 | 15.2 | 35.9 | 11.6 | 32.0 |
| High school graduatea | 15.7 | 36.3 | 15.8 | 36.4 | 15.7 | 36.3 |
| Some collegea | 4.8 | 21.4 | 6.6 | 24.9 | 4.9 | 21.5 |
| College degree | 63.8 | 48.0 | 57.1 | 49.5 | 63.6 | 48.1 |
| Missinga | 4.2 | 20.2 | 5.3 | 22.6 | 4.3 | 20.2 |
| Household type | ||||||
| Couples with children | 23.9 | 42.7 | 11.1 | 31.3 | 23.5 | 42.4 |
| Couples without children | 41.9 | 49.3 | 36.7 | 48.2 | 41.7 | 49.3 |
| Single parentsa | 7.2 | 25.9 | 9.5 | 29.3 | 7.3 | 26.0 |
| Individuals and other types | 26.7 | 44.2 | 42.5 | 49.4 | 27.2 | 44.5 |
| Missinga | 0.3 | 5.1 | 0.5 | 6.9 | 0.3 | 5.2 |
Notes: All percentages were weighted by the individual sample weights. All differences between those who died before 65 and those who died at or after 65 were significant at p < 0.05 except the categories denoted by a. According to Statistics Canada’s vetting rules, number of persons was rounded to the nearest digit of five while number of weighted population was rounded to the nearest hundred. The low proportions missing smoker status or homeownership were hidden to protect identity
Fig. 1Crude mortality rate and age at death by food insecurity status. Crude mortality rate per 10,000 person-years (blue bars; N = 354,000 person-years) was obtained by dividing observed number of pre-65 deaths by number of person-years traced for each food insecurity level in the full sample. Mean age at death (orange dots; N = 2075 persons) was computed for each food insecurity level by taking the average age at death among those with observed deaths before 65 by 2017
Fig. 2Hazard ratio of pre-65 mortality by food insecurity status among adults with below-median income. Hazard ratio of pre-65 mortality by food insecurity status was estimated using Cox proportional hazard model, with “food-secure” as the reference category (N = 354,000 person-years). Three sets of models were fitted on the full sample with below-median income, adjusting for no covariate, part of the covariates (respondent’s sex, age at interview, smoker status, alcohol consumption, number of chronic conditions), and all covariates (respondent’s sex, age at interview, smoker status, alcohol consumption, number of chronic conditions, Low Income Measure (LIM) status, homeownership, education attainment, household type, Indigenous identity). Fully adjusted models were further fitted on subsamples below and above LIM. Age at interview and number of chronic conditions were set as stratifying variables in all adjusted models due to their violation of hazard proportionality assumption indicated by Schoenfeld test