Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32991748›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2021

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

Lucy M Butcher, Therese A O'Sullivan, Maria M Ryan, Johnny Lo, Julie Nyanjom, Hugh C Wilkins, Amanda Devine

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. To dine in or not to dine in: A comparison of food selection and preparation behaviours in those with and without food security.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Lucy M ButcherEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2960-3281
Therese A O'SullivanEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1003-854X
Maria M RyanEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.
Johnny LoEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1913-5354
Julie NyanjomEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-4130
Hugh C WilkinsEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3236-3802
Amanda DevineEdith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6978-6249
Edith Cowan University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

issue addressedVulnerable 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.

methodsAn 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.

resultsFood 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.

conclusionsFood 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.

Indexed as

Food PreferencesFood SecurityAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFood SupplyHumansHungercookingfast foodfood insecurityfood literacyfood povertyfood securitytakeaway

Identifiers

PMID32991748
PMCPMC8597035
OpenAlexW3091472450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.