Angela D Liese, Emmanuel F Julceus, Andrea D Brown, Catherine Pihoker, Edward A Frongillo, Katherine A Sauder, Faisal S Malik, Anna Bellatorre, Beth A Reboussin, Jason A Mendoza
{"title":"Reassessing the Burden of Food Insecurity in Youth and Young Adults With Youth-onset Diabetes: The Importance of Marginal Food Security.","authors":"Angela D Liese, Emmanuel F Julceus, Andrea D Brown, Catherine Pihoker, Edward A Frongillo, Katherine A Sauder, Faisal S Malik, Anna Bellatorre, Beth A Reboussin, Jason A Mendoza","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjd.2024.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Whereas marginal food insecurity has been recognized as important in Canadian food security policy, the category of marginal food security (MFS) is often ignored in US food security research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prevalence of FI was estimated according to the conventional and an alternate classification of MFS with food insecurity among 938 youth and young adults (YYA) with youth-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 156 with youth-onset of type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SEARCH Food Security Cohort Study (2018-2021). Multivariable regression was used to estimate the association of MFS and conventionally defined food insecurity (FI) ascertained with diabetes-related outcomes, including acute diabetes complications, health care utilization, and diabetes self-management among YYA with T1D.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MFS affected 10% of participants with T1D diabetes and 20% of participants with T2D. Classifying MFS with FI increased FI prevalence from 18.0% to 27.8% in participants with T1D and 34.6% to 55.1% in participants with T2D. Compared to T1D with high food security, YYA with T1D who were FI had higher odds hypoglycemia (2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) and ketoacidosis (1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.6), but no association was seen in MFS. The FI group also had higher odds of emergency department use and hospitalization (2.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4; 2.4, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.9) and lower odds of technology use and checking glucose (0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6). The MFS group exhibited associations of similar directions.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Health care providers should consider care of patients with T1D and MFS the same way they care for patients with FI.</p>","PeriodicalId":93918,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of diabetes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2024.10.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Whereas marginal food insecurity has been recognized as important in Canadian food security policy, the category of marginal food security (MFS) is often ignored in US food security research.
Methods: Prevalence of FI was estimated according to the conventional and an alternate classification of MFS with food insecurity among 938 youth and young adults (YYA) with youth-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 156 with youth-onset of type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SEARCH Food Security Cohort Study (2018-2021). Multivariable regression was used to estimate the association of MFS and conventionally defined food insecurity (FI) ascertained with diabetes-related outcomes, including acute diabetes complications, health care utilization, and diabetes self-management among YYA with T1D.
Results: MFS affected 10% of participants with T1D diabetes and 20% of participants with T2D. Classifying MFS with FI increased FI prevalence from 18.0% to 27.8% in participants with T1D and 34.6% to 55.1% in participants with T2D. Compared to T1D with high food security, YYA with T1D who were FI had higher odds hypoglycemia (2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) and ketoacidosis (1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.6), but no association was seen in MFS. The FI group also had higher odds of emergency department use and hospitalization (2.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4; 2.4, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.9) and lower odds of technology use and checking glucose (0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6). The MFS group exhibited associations of similar directions.
Discussion and conclusion: Health care providers should consider care of patients with T1D and MFS the same way they care for patients with FI.