• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

荷兰食品银行提供的食品包裹不符合健康饮食的营养指南。

Dutch food bank parcels do not meet nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet.

作者信息

Neter Judith E, Dijkstra S Coosje, Visser Marjolein, Brouwer Ingeborg A

机构信息

1Department of Health Sciences, The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences,VU University Amsterdam,De Boelelaan 1085,1081 HV Amsterdam,The Netherlands.

出版信息

Br J Nutr. 2016 Aug;116(3):526-33. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516002087. Epub 2016 May 27.

DOI:10.1017/S0007114516002087
PMID:27229880
Abstract

Nutritional intakes of food bank recipients and consequently their health status largely rely on the availability and quality of donated food in provided food parcels. In this cross-sectional study, the nutritional quality of ninety-six individual food parcels was assessed and compared with the Dutch nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet. Furthermore, we assessed how food bank recipients use the contents of the food parcel. Therefore, 251 Dutch food bank recipients from eleven food banks throughout the Netherlands filled out a general questionnaire. The provided amounts of energy (19 849 (sd 162 615) kJ (4744 (sd 38 866) kcal)), protein (14·6 energy percentages (en%)) and SFA (12·9 en%) in a single-person food parcel for one single day were higher than the nutritional guidelines, whereas the provided amounts of fruits (97 (sd 1441) g) and fish (23 (sd 640) g) were lower. The number of days for which macronutrients, fruits, vegetables and fish were provided for a single-person food parcel ranged from 1·2 (fruits) to 11·3 (protein) d. Of the participants, only 9·5 % bought fruits and 4·6 % bought fish to supplement the food parcel, 39·4 % used all foods provided and 75·7 % were (very) satisfied with the contents of the food parcel. Our study shows that the nutritional content of food parcels provided by Dutch food banks is not in line with the nutritional guidelines. Improving the quality of the parcels is likely to positively impact the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup.

摘要

食物银行受助者的营养摄入以及他们的健康状况在很大程度上取决于所提供食品包裹中捐赠食品的可得性和质量。在这项横断面研究中,对96个单独食品包裹的营养质量进行了评估,并与荷兰健康饮食营养指南进行了比较。此外,我们评估了食物银行受助者如何使用食品包裹中的内容物。因此,来自荷兰各地11家食物银行的251名荷兰食物银行受助者填写了一份一般问卷。单人一天的食品包裹中提供的能量(19849(标准差162615)千焦(4744(标准差38866)千卡))、蛋白质(14.6能量百分比(en%))和饱和脂肪酸(12.9 en%)高于营养指南,而提供的水果量(97(标准差1441)克)和鱼类量(23(标准差640)克)较低。单人食品包裹中提供常量营养素、水果、蔬菜和鱼类的天数从1.2(水果)到11.3(蛋白质)天不等。在参与者中,只有9.5%的人购买水果,4.6%的人购买鱼类来补充食品包裹,39.4%的人使用了提供的所有食物,75.7%的人对食品包裹的内容物(非常)满意。我们的研究表明,荷兰食物银行提供的食品包裹的营养成分不符合营养指南。提高包裹质量可能会对这一弱势群体亚组的饮食摄入产生积极影响。

相似文献

1
Dutch food bank parcels do not meet nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet.荷兰食品银行提供的食品包裹不符合健康饮食的营养指南。
Br J Nutr. 2016 Aug;116(3):526-33. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516002087. Epub 2016 May 27.
2
Dutch food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low-socioeconomic status Dutch adult population.荷兰食品银行的领取者的饮食摄入比一般和社会经济地位较低的荷兰成年人口更差。
Eur J Nutr. 2018 Dec;57(8):2747-2758. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1540-x. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
3
The role of food parcel use on dietary intake: perception of Dutch food bank recipients - a focus group study.食品包裹使用对饮食摄入的影响:荷兰食品银行接受者的看法——一项焦点小组研究。
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jun;23(9):1647-1656. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019003823. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
4
Improving the dietary quality of food parcels leads to improved dietary intake in Dutch food bank recipients-effects of a randomized controlled trial.改善食品包裹的膳食质量可提高荷兰食品银行受助者的膳食摄入量——一项随机对照试验的效果
Eur J Nutr. 2020 Dec;59(8):3491-3501. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02182-8. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
5
Nutritional adequacy and content of food bank parcels in Oxfordshire, UK: a comparative analysis of independent and organisational provision.英国牛津郡食品银行包裹的营养充足性和内容:独立和组织供应的比较分析。
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2020 Aug;33(4):477-486. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12740. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
6
Assessing the nutritional content and adequacy of food parcels among vulnerable Lebanese during a double crisis: COVID-19 pandemic and an economic meltdown.评估在双重危机期间(COVID-19 大流行和经济崩溃)脆弱的黎巴嫩人中食品包裹的营养含量和充足性。
Public Health Nutr. 2023 Jun;26(6):1271-1283. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023000241. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
7
The nutritional quality of food parcels provided by food banks and the effectiveness of food banks at reducing food insecurity in developed countries: a mixed-method systematic review.食品银行提供的食品包裹的营养质量和食品银行在发达国家减少粮食不安全方面的有效性:一项混合方法系统评价。
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2022 Dec;35(6):1202-1229. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12994. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
8
Healthy diets with reduced environmental impact? - The greenhouse gas emissions of various diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines.健康饮食与降低环境影响?——遵循荷兰基于食物的膳食指南的各种饮食的温室气体排放。
Food Res Int. 2018 Feb;104:14-24. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.06.006. Epub 2017 Jun 6.
9
Dietary intake in the dependent elderly: evaluation of the risk of nutritional deficit.依赖他人生活的老年人的饮食摄入:营养缺乏风险评估
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Apr;29(2):174-84. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12310. Epub 2015 Apr 28.
10
Food insecurity among Dutch food bank recipients: a cross-sectional study.荷兰食物银行受助者的粮食不安全状况:一项横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 May 16;4(5):e004657. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004657.

引用本文的文献

1
Nutritional adequacy of charitable food aid packages to the needs of different household-types: a case study in Spain.慈善食品援助包对不同家庭类型需求的营养充足性:西班牙的一个案例研究。
BMC Nutr. 2025 Jul 5;11(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s40795-025-01122-1.
2
Dietary risk of donated food at an Australian food bank: an audit protocol.澳大利亚一家食品银行捐赠食品的饮食风险:一项审计方案。
BMC Nutr. 2023 Jun 5;9(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s40795-023-00719-8.
3
Assessing the nutritional content and adequacy of food parcels among vulnerable Lebanese during a double crisis: COVID-19 pandemic and an economic meltdown.
评估在双重危机期间(COVID-19 大流行和经济崩溃)脆弱的黎巴嫩人中食品包裹的营养含量和充足性。
Public Health Nutr. 2023 Jun;26(6):1271-1283. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023000241. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
4
The nutritional quality of food parcels provided by food banks and the effectiveness of food banks at reducing food insecurity in developed countries: a mixed-method systematic review.食品银行提供的食品包裹的营养质量和食品银行在发达国家减少粮食不安全方面的有效性:一项混合方法系统评价。
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2022 Dec;35(6):1202-1229. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12994. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
5
[Changes in perceived food insecurity and eating behavior in the Netherlands since the COVID-19-crisis].[自新冠疫情危机以来荷兰感知到的粮食不安全状况及饮食行为的变化]
TSG. 2021;99(3):83-94. doi: 10.1007/s12508-021-00311-0. Epub 2021 Jul 23.
6
Food Waste and Nutrition Quality in the Context of Public Health: A Scoping Review.**标题**:公共卫生视角下的食物浪费与营养质量:范围综述 **摘要**:食物浪费与营养质量之间的关系是一个日益受到关注的问题,尤其是在公共卫生领域。本研究旨在对相关文献进行全面梳理,以了解食物浪费对营养质量的影响。采用 scoping review 方法,对 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库进行检索,纳入 2000 年至 2023 年期间发表的英文文献。通过筛选,最终纳入 29 篇文献。结果表明,食物浪费对营养质量有负面影响,尤其是在发展中国家。减少食物浪费可以改善营养质量,并对公共卫生具有重要意义。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 18;18(10):5379. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105379.
7
The role of food parcel use on dietary intake: perception of Dutch food bank recipients - a focus group study.食品包裹使用对饮食摄入的影响:荷兰食品银行接受者的看法——一项焦点小组研究。
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jun;23(9):1647-1656. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019003823. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
8
Improving the dietary quality of food parcels leads to improved dietary intake in Dutch food bank recipients-effects of a randomized controlled trial.改善食品包裹的膳食质量可提高荷兰食品银行受助者的膳食摄入量——一项随机对照试验的效果
Eur J Nutr. 2020 Dec;59(8):3491-3501. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02182-8. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
9
Needs and perceptions regarding healthy eating among people at risk of food insecurity: a qualitative analysis.食物不安全风险人群的健康饮食需求和认知:定性分析。
Int J Equity Health. 2019 Nov 27;18(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-1077-0.
10
Food-Aid Quality Correlates Positively With Diet Quality of Food Pantry Users in the Food Bank Collaborative.在食品银行合作项目中,食品援助质量与食品分发处使用者的饮食质量呈正相关。
Front Nutr. 2018 Dec 18;5:123. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00123. eCollection 2018.