Suppr超能文献

在外就餐或在家就餐:有无食品安全人群的食物选择和准备行为比较。

To dine in or not to dine in: A comparison of food selection and preparation behaviours in those with and without food security.

机构信息

Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.

Foodbank WA, Perth Airport, WA, Australia.

出版信息

Health Promot J Austr. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):267-282. doi: 10.1002/hpja.427. Epub 2020 Oct 20.

Abstract

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by food insecurity, resulting in heightened risk of suboptimal dietary intake. Food insecure people appear to implement several coping strategies and dietary compromises to avoid hunger. Less explored in the literature is how these strategies impact consumption of food inside and outside of the home.

METHODS

An online survey was completed by adults (n = 1292) residing in one of five Australian states. The questionnaire comprised of the six-item US Household Food Security Survey Module, 12 socio-demographic variables and 32 questions related to elements of food literacy.

RESULTS

Food insecure respondents were more likely to frequent fast food vs (P = .002), takeaway (P < .001) and food courts (P < .001) than their food secure counterparts. Food secure respondents reported greater use of raw (P = .043) and fresh, pre-prepared produce (P = .002) when cooking, whereas food insecure respondents were more likely to prepare food using only frozen, pre-packaged products (P < .001). No significant differences were found between food security status and the enjoyment and social bonding derived from cooking.

CONCLUSIONS

Food insecure respondents appeared to be accessing a poorer quality of food through greater consumption of takeaway and fast food. These dietary compromises are most likely related to perceived financial, time or cooking facility constraints and to a lesser extent food literacy skills. SO WHAT?: This study highlights some of the health and social inequities apparent within food insecure populations. Food insecure households should be supported to access healthy fresh food and in-home cooking practices. While a multi strategy approach is required, healthy food environment policy, particularly in disadvantaged areas, should be considered to guarantee that all Australians have dignified access to nutritious food.

摘要

问题陈述

弱势群体受到食物不安全的不成比例影响,导致饮食摄入不足的风险增加。食物不安全的人似乎实施了几种应对策略和饮食妥协来避免饥饿。在文献中,较少探讨的是这些策略如何影响家庭内外的食物消费。

方法

在澳大利亚的五个州之一居住的成年人(n=1292)完成了在线调查。问卷包括美国家庭食物安全调查模块的六个项目、12 个社会人口统计学变量和 32 个与食物素养要素相关的问题。

结果

食物不安全的受访者比食物安全的受访者更频繁地光顾快餐店(P=.002)、外卖(P<.001)和美食广场(P<.001)。食物安全的受访者在烹饪时更有可能使用生的(P=.043)和新鲜的、预制的农产品,而食物不安全的受访者更有可能只使用冷冻的、预先包装的产品来准备食物(P<.001)。在食物安全状况与烹饪带来的享受和社交联系方面,没有发现显著差异。

结论

食物不安全的受访者似乎通过更多地消费外卖和快餐来获取较差质量的食物。这些饮食妥协最可能与感知到的财务、时间或烹饪设施限制有关,在较小程度上与食物素养技能有关。

所以呢?:本研究强调了食物不安全人群中存在的一些健康和社会不平等现象。应支持食物不安全的家庭获得健康的新鲜食物和家庭烹饪实践。虽然需要采取多策略方法,但应考虑健康食品环境政策,特别是在贫困地区,以确保所有澳大利亚人都有尊严地获得营养食物。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验