• 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

评估筛查以评估住院环境中食物不安全的认可情况。

Evaluating Screening to Assess Endorsement of Food Insecurity in the Inpatient Setting.

机构信息

Division of Hospital Medicine.

James Anderson Center.

出版信息

Hosp Pediatr. 2024 Apr 1;14(4):e201-e205. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2023-007164.

DOI:10.1542/hpeds.2023-007164
PMID:38454835
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Rates of food insecurity (FI) from screening in the inpatient setting is often not reflective of community prevalence, indicating that screening likely misses families with FI. We aimed to determine the combination of FI screening questions and methods that would result in identifying a percentage of FI families that matched or exceeded our area prevalence (approximately 20%).

METHODS

Research staff approached eligible English- and Spanish-speaking families across 4 inpatient units once weekly and screened for FI using a randomly selected method (face-to-face, phone, paper, and tablet). We asked questions from the 6-Item USDA Survey, Hunger Vital Sign screener, and questions utilized by our social workers.

RESULTS

We screened 361 families; 19.4% (N = 70) endorsed FI. Differences in rates were not significant by method. Differences in FI rates based on screening questions were: 17.7% for the 6-item USDA survey, 16.0% for Hunger Vital Sign, and 3.1% for the social work questions. When considering method and screening questions together, the 6-Item USDA on paper had the highest positivity rate of 20.9%. A higher percentage of Spanish-speaking families endorsed FI (61.1%) compared to 17.2% of English-speaking families (P < .01). Positivity also varied significantly by self-identified race (P < .01). Caregivers that identified as Hispanic or Latino were significantly more likely to endorse FI than those that did not (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The positivity rate for FI while screening inpatient families using the 6-Item screening questions on paper matched our community prevalence of FI (approximately 20%).

摘要

目的

住院患者的食物不安全(FI)筛查率通常与社区流行率不符,这表明筛查可能会遗漏有 FI 的家庭。我们旨在确定 FI 筛查问题和方法的组合,以便确定与我们地区流行率(约 20%)相匹配或超过的 FI 家庭的比例。

方法

研究人员每周一次在 4 个住院病房向符合条件的英语和西班牙语家庭提出申请,并使用随机选择的方法(面对面、电话、纸质和平板电脑)对其进行 FI 筛查。我们询问了来自美国农业部 6 项调查、饥饿生命体征筛查器以及我们社会工作者使用的问题的问题。

结果

我们共筛查了 361 个家庭;19.4%(N=70)有 FI。方法之间的差异无统计学意义。基于筛查问题的 FI 发生率差异:6 项美国农业部调查为 17.7%,饥饿生命体征为 16.0%,社会工作问题为 3.1%。当同时考虑方法和筛查问题时,纸质的 6 项美国农业部调查的阳性率最高,为 20.9%。西班牙语家庭的 FI 发生率(61.1%)明显高于英语家庭(17.2%)(P<.01)。阳性率也因自我认定的种族而异(P<.01)。自我认定为西班牙裔或拉丁裔的照顾者更有可能表示存在 FI(P<.01)。

结论

在使用纸质的 6 项筛查问题对住院患者进行 FI 筛查时,FI 的阳性率与我们社区的 FI 流行率(约 20%)相匹配。

相似文献

1
Evaluating Screening to Assess Endorsement of Food Insecurity in the Inpatient Setting.评估筛查以评估住院环境中食物不安全的认可情况。
Hosp Pediatr. 2024 Apr 1;14(4):e201-e205. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2023-007164.
2
Food Insecurity in a Pediatric Emergency Department and the Feasibility of Universal Screening.儿科急诊中的食物不安全状况和普遍筛查的可行性。
West J Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 27;22(6):1295-1300. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2021.7.52519.
3
Perspectives of Caregivers Experiencing Persistent Food Insecurity at an Academic Primary Care Clinic.学术性基层医疗诊所中持续性食物不安全感的看护者观点。
Acad Pediatr. 2022 Aug;22(6):892-899. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2021.07.025. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
4
Inpatient Food Insecurity in Caregivers of Hospitalized Pediatric Patients: A Mixed Methods Study.住院儿科患者照顾者的住院患者食物不安全状况:混合方法研究。
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Nov-Dec;21(8):1404-1413. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2021.04.018. Epub 2021 Apr 24.
5
Identifying Food Insecurity in Cardiology Clinic and Connecting Families to Resources.识别心脏病学诊所中的粮食不安全问题并为家庭提供资源。
Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5). doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-011718.
6
Development and validity of a 2-item screen to identify families at risk for food insecurity.开发并验证一种两项目的筛查工具,以识别存在食物不安全风险的家庭。
Pediatrics. 2010 Jul;126(1):e26-32. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3146.
7
Families Benefit After Utilization of a Clinic-Based Food Pantry Irrespective of Food Insecurity Experiences in a Pediatric Obesity Treatment Program.在儿科肥胖治疗计划中,无论是否存在食物不安全体验,利用基于诊所的食品储藏室都能使家庭受益。
Am J Health Promot. 2024 Jun;38(5):661-671. doi: 10.1177/08901171241229828. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
8
Referral and Resource Utilization Among Food Insecure Families Identified in a Pediatric Medical Setting.在儿科医疗环境中确定的粮食不安全家庭的转介和资源利用。
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Apr;21(3):446-454. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.11.019. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
9
Prevalence of food insecurity among students attending four Historically Black Colleges and Universities.四所传统黑人大学学生的食物不安全发生率。
J Am Coll Health. 2023 Jan;71(1):87-93. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1877144. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
10
Examining food insecurity in a regional New Zealand emergency department: A cross-sectional study.考察新西兰一个地区急症部门的食物不安全状况:一项横断面研究。
Emerg Med Australas. 2024 Jun;36(3):421-428. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.14376. Epub 2024 Feb 4.