Potential health and dietary consequences of food insecurity among Australian adults residing in urbanised disadvantaged areas

Purpose: Food insecurity is the limited/uncertain availability or ability to acquire nutritionally-adequate, culturally-relevant and safe foods. Adults suffering from food insecurity are at risk of inadequate nutrient intakes or, paradoxically, overweight/obesity and the development of chronic disease. Despite the global financial crisis and rising costs of living, few studies have investigated the potential dietary and health consequences of food insecurity among the Australian population. This study examined whether food insecurity was associated with health behaviours and dietary intakes among adults residing in socioeconomically-disadvantaged urbanised areas. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a random sample of residents (n = 1000) were selected from the most disadvantaged suburbs of Brisbane city (response rate 51%). Data were collected by postal questionnaire which ascertained information on socio-demographic information, household food security, height, weight, frequency of healthcare utilisation, presence of chronic disease and intakes of fruit, vegetables and take-away. Data were analysed using logistic regression. Results/Findings: The prevalence of food insecurity was 25%. Those reporting food insecurity were two-to-three times more likely to have seen a general practitioner or been hospitalised within the previous 6 months. Furthermore, food insecurity was associated with a three-to-six-fold increase in the likelihood of experiencing depression. Food insecurity was associated with higher intakes of some take-away foods, however was not significantly associated with weight status or intakes of fruits or vegetables among this disadvantaged sample. Conclusion: Food insecurity has potential adverse health consequences that may result in significant health burdens among the population, and this may be concentrated in socioeconomically-disadvantaged suburbs.

Advocacy for health : revisiting the role of health promotion

Issue addressed: The importance of advocacy in protecting the population’s health; and suggested strategies to advance an advocacy role. Discussion: This article explores the concept of health advocacy, discusses an example of successful health advocacy within Australia, and outlines and addresses some of the barriers to advocacy. It aims to encourage discussion on advocacy’s potential to improve the public’s health. Conclusions: Many of the major successes of health promotion have been facilitated through the efforts of advocates. This article supports the proposition that advocacy is a fundamental instrument of health promotion practice and suggests strategies to apply these principles in practice.

Current measure of food insecurity used in the National Health Survey may be underestimating its prevalence

Objective: Food insecurity may be associated with a number of adverse health and social outcomes however our knowledge of its public health significance in Australia has been limited by use of a single-item measure in the Australian National Health Surveys (NHS) and, more recently, the exclusion of food security items from these surveys. The current study compares prevalence estimates of food insecurity in disadvantaged urban areas of Brisbane using the one-item NHS measure with three adaptations of the United States Department of Agriculture Food Security Survey Module (USDA-FSSM). Design: Data were collected by postal survey (n= 505, 53% response). Food security status was ascertained by the measure used in the NHS, and the 6-, 10- and 18-item versions of the USDA-FSSM. Demographic characteristics of the sample, prevalence estimates of food insecurity and different levels of food insecurity estimated by each tool were determined. Setting: Disadvantaged suburbs of Brisbane city, Australia, 2009. Subjects: Individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Results: Food insecurity was prevalent in socioeconomically-disadvantaged urban areas, estimated as 19.5% using the single-item NHS measure. This was significantly less than the 24.6% (P <0.01), 22.0% (P = 0.01) and 21.3% (P = 0.03) identified using the 18-item, 10-item and 6-item versions of the USDA-FSSM, respectively. The proportion of the sample reporting more severe levels of food insecurity were 10.7%, 10% and 8.6% for the 18-, 10- and 6-item USDA measures respectively, however this degree of food insecurity could not be ascertained using the NHS measure. Conclusions: The measure of food insecurity employed in the NHS may underestimate its prevalence and public health significance. Future monitoring and surveillance efforts should seek to employ a more accurate measure.