ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Development and validation of a 1-item very low food security screen.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. 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.
- Associations between food insecurity, food insufficiency, and disordered eating behaviors among U.S. adolescents.Eating behaviors · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has made screening for health-related social needs (HRSNs) mandatory since 2024. Patients screening positive for HRSN food insecurity (FI) are connected with Supplemental Nutrition Services using 1115 Demonstration waivers. With a shift in funding, Massachusetts adopted a more stringent FI-level screening protocol (very low food security [VLFS]). To date, there is no screening tool that identifies VLFS alone; thus, we developed a sensitive, specific, and valid screen to determine risk for VLFS. Methods: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive- and negative-predictive values were used to test combinations of questions compared with the USDA Household Food Security Survey Module using the 2022 Current Population Survey. Results: The best VLFS screen was, "In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?" (yes/no). The screen was highly sensitive, specific, and valid for detecting VLFS risk in US households with and without children (sensitivity, 92.2% and 97.2%; specificity, 96.2% and 97.4%, respectively), and with diverse populations. Conclusion: The VLFS screen is recommended for use by states adopting a more stringent FI-level screening protocol.
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.