Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
JAMA Health Forum. 2021 Aug 6;2(8):e212001. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.2001. eCollection 2021 Aug.
Inadequate access to food is a risk factor for poor health and the effectiveness of federal programs targeting food insecurity, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are well-documented. The associations between other types of interventions to provide adequate food access and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization, however, are unclear.
To review evidence on the association between food insecurity interventions and food insecurity status, clinically-relevant health outcomes, and health care utilization among adults, excluding SNAP.
A systematic search for English-language literature was performed in PubMed Central and Cochrane Trials databases (inception to January 23, 2020), the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network database (December 10, 2019); and the gray literature using Google (February 1, 2021).
Studies of any design that assessed the association between food insecurity interventions for adult participants and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization were screened for inclusion. Studies of interventions that described addressing participants' food needs or reporting food insecurity as an outcome were included. Interventions were categorized as home-delivered food, food offered at a secondary site, monetary assistance in the form of subsidies or income supplements, food desert interventions, and miscellaneous.
Data extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions) tool, and a modified version of the National Institutes of Health's Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control. The certainty of evidence was based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria and supplemented with mechanistic and parallel evidence. For outcomes within intervention categories with at least 3 studies, random effects meta-analysis was performed.
Food insecurity (measured through surveys; eg, the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign), health outcomes (eg, hemoglobin A), and health care utilization (eg, hospitalizations, costs).
A total of 39 studies comprising 170 605 participants were included (8 randomized clinical trials and 31 observational studies). Of these, 14 studies provided high-certainty evidence of an association between offering food and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67). Ten studies provided moderate-certainty evidence of an association between offering monetary assistance and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84). There were fewer studies of the associations between interventions and health outcomes or health care utilization, and the evidence in these areas was of low or very low certainty that any food insecurity interventions were associated with changes in either.
This systematic review with meta-analysis found that providing food and monetary assistance was associated with improved food insecurity measures; however, whether it translated to better health outcomes or reduced health care utilization was unclear.
食物获取不足是健康状况不佳的一个风险因素,针对食物不安全问题的联邦计划(如补充营养援助计划 (SNAP))的有效性已得到充分证明。然而,其他类型的提供充足食物获取途径的干预措施与食物不安全状况、临床相关健康结果和卫生保健利用之间的关联尚不清楚。
综述与成年人食物不安全干预措施与食物不安全状况、临床相关健康结果和卫生保健利用之间关联的证据,不包括 SNAP。
在 PubMed Central 和 Cochrane 临床试验数据库(成立至 2020 年 1 月 23 日)、社会干预研究和评估网络数据库(2019 年 12 月 10 日)和谷歌的灰色文献(2021 年 2 月 1 日)中进行了关于英文文献的系统搜索。
筛选了评估成人参与者的食物不安全干预措施与食物不安全状况、健康结果和卫生保健利用之间关联的任何设计的研究。纳入了描述解决参与者食物需求或报告食物不安全作为结果的干预措施的研究。干预措施分为家庭配送食品、在二级地点提供的食品、以补贴或收入补充形式提供的货币援助、食物荒漠干预措施和杂项。
由 3 位评审员独立进行数据提取。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具、非随机干预研究的 ROBINS-I(干预风险评估工具)工具和 NIH 用于无对照前后研究的质量评估工具的修改版本评估研究质量。证据的确定性基于 GRADE(推荐评估、制定和评估)标准,并辅以机制和平行证据进行补充。对于干预类别中至少有 3 项研究的结局,进行了随机效应荟萃分析。
食物不安全(通过调查测量;例如,2 项饥饿生命体征)、健康结果(例如,血红蛋白 A)和卫生保健利用(例如,住院、成本)。
共纳入 39 项研究,包含 170605 名参与者(8 项随机临床试验和 31 项观察性研究)。其中,14 项研究提供了提供食物与减少食物不安全之间关联的高确定性证据(汇总随机效应;调整后的优势比,0.53;95%CI,0.33-0.67)。10 项研究提供了提供货币援助与减少食物不安全之间关联的中等确定性证据(汇总随机效应;调整后的优势比,0.64;95%CI,0.49-0.84)。关于干预措施与健康结果或卫生保健利用之间关联的研究较少,这些领域的证据确定性为低或极低,表明任何食物不安全干预措施都与改善健康结果或减少卫生保健利用有关。
本系统评价和荟萃分析发现,提供食物和货币援助与改善食物不安全测量指标有关;然而,这是否转化为更好的健康结果或减少卫生保健利用尚不清楚。