ArticleBMC public health2025
Performance of a two-item screening for household food insecurity during WIC services.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Diet quality measured using the Mediterranean diet score and anxiety during armed conflict.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in California introduced household food insecurity (HFI) screening during eligibility certifications in 2019. This study was conducted to evaluate the screening performance of the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign ™ Screener (HVSS2) for HFI during WIC eligibility certification visits in Los Angeles County (LAC), California.
methodsStudy participants completed a 6-item USDA Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM6) assessment in either the 2020 LAC WIC Survey (July-December 2021) or the longitudinal WIC Cash Value Benefit Study (April 2021-May 2022) and had WIC administrative HVSS2 screening data within 30 days of HFSSM6 measurement (n = 1,113). HVSS2 performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for detecting HFI (low or very low food security) was evaluated against the HFSSM6.
resultsNearly one-third (31.1%) of LAC WIC Survey respondents and one-half (50.5%) of WIC Cash Value Benefit Study respondents had HFI based on the HFSSM6, while 15.7% and 20.0% had HFI based on HVSS2 for the two studies, respectively. The HVSS2 had high specificity (0.90-0.93), moderate-to-high negative predictive value (0.54-0.74), low sensitivity (0.29-0.38), and moderate-to-high positive predictive value (0.57-0.83) for HFI.
conclusionsHVSS2 screening during WIC services has moderate-to-high negative (i.e., screen negative, are food secure) and positive (i.e., screen positive, are food insecure) predictive values for HFI. Dedicated staff training may be needed to improve the performance of the HVSS2 and to make HVSS2 data collected during WIC certifications more helpful in identifying and referring families experiencing HFI to more services.
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.