School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Waterfront campus, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 6;16(3):476. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030476.
The number of Australians seeking food aid has increased in recent years; however, the current variability in the measurement of food insecurity means that the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in Australia is likely underreported. This is compounded by infrequent national health surveys that measure food insecurity, resulting in outdated population-level food insecurity data. This review sought to investigate the breadth of food insecurity research conducted in Australia to evaluate how this construct is being measured. A systematic review was conducted to collate the available Australian research. Fifty-seven publications were reviewed. Twenty-two used a single-item measure to examine food security status; 11 used the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM); two used the Radimer/Cornell instrument; one used the Household Food and Nutrition Security Survey (HFNSS); while the remainder used a less rigorous or unidentified method. A wide range in prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the community was reported; food insecurity ranged from 2% to 90%, depending on the measurement tool and population under investigation. Based on the findings of this review, the authors suggest that there needs to be greater consistency in measuring food insecurity, and that work is needed to create a measure of food insecurity tailored for the Australian context. Such a tool will allow researchers to gain a clear understanding of the prevalence of food insecurity in Australia to create better policy and practice responses.
近年来,寻求食品援助的澳大利亚人数量有所增加;然而,目前衡量粮食不安全的方法存在差异,这意味着澳大利亚的粮食不安全状况的普遍性和严重程度可能被低估了。这是由于衡量粮食不安全的全国性健康调查不频繁,导致过时的人口粮食不安全数据。本综述旨在调查在澳大利亚进行的粮食不安全研究的广度,以评估这一结构的测量方法。进行了系统综述以整理现有的澳大利亚研究。共审查了 57 篇出版物。22 项研究使用单项措施来检查粮食安全状况;11 项研究使用美国农业部(USDA)家庭粮食安全调查模块(HFSSM);两项研究使用 Radimer/Cornell 工具;一项研究使用家庭粮食和营养安全调查(HFNSS);其余研究使用的方法则不那么严格或未确定。报告了社区中粮食不安全的发生率和严重程度差异很大;粮食不安全的发生率范围从 2%到 90%,具体取决于测量工具和调查的人群。基于本综述的研究结果,作者建议需要在衡量粮食不安全方面更加一致,并需要努力创建适合澳大利亚国情的粮食不安全衡量工具。这样的工具将使研究人员能够清楚地了解澳大利亚粮食不安全的普遍性,从而制定更好的政策和实践应对措施。