ArticleBMC public health2024
Food budget ratio as an equitable metric for food affordability and insecurity: a population-based cohort study of 121 remote Indigenous communities in Canada.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenges and Practices in Perishable Food Supply Chain Management in Remote Indigenous Communities: A Scoping Review and Conceptual Framework for Enhancing Food Access.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood insecurity is a public health issue for many regions globally, and especially Indigenous communities. We propose food budget ratio (FBR)-the ratio of food spending to after-tax income-as an affordability metric that better aligns with health equity over traditional price-focused metrics. Existing census and inflation monitoring programs render FBR an accessible tool for future affordability research.
methodsPublic census and food pricing datasets from 2011 to 2021 were analyzed to evaluate food affordability for a cohort of 121 remote Indigenous communities in Canada (n = 80,354 persons as of March 2021). Trends in population-weighted versus community-weighted averages, inflation-adjusted mean price of the Revised Northern Food Basket (RNFB), and distributions of FBR, per-capita price of food, and per-capita after-tax income were calculated and compared to Canada at large.
resultsPopulation-weighted versus community-weighted mean price of the RNFB differed by < 5% for most points in time, peaking at 17%. Mean raw price of the RNFB was relatively stable, while mean inflation-adjusted price of the RNFB decreased 19%. Mean and standard deviation in FBR trended downwards from (0.40; 0.21) in 2011 to (0.25; 0.10) in 2021, while the mean for Canada held stable at 0.10 ± 0.01. Mean and standard deviation in inflation-adjusted per-capita price of food fell from ($5,621; $493) to ($4,510; $243), while the Canada-wide mean rose from $2,189 to $2,567; values for per-capita after-tax income increased from ($17,384; $7,816) to ($21,661; $9,707), while the Canada-wide mean remained between $24,443 and $26,006. Current Nutrition North Canada (NNC) subsidy rates correlate closely with distance to nearest transportation hub (σ
conclusionsThe FBR approach yields greater insights on food affordability compared to price-based results, while using readily available public datasets. Whereas 19% reductions in RNFB per-capita food price were observed, FBR decreased 63% yet remained 2.5 times the Canada-wide FBR. The reduction in FBR was driven both by the reduced price of food and a 25% increase in after-tax income. It is recommended that NNC consider FBR for performance measurement and setting subsidy rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.