Food insecurity, social capital and perceived personal disparity in a predominantly rural region of Texas: An individual-level analysis

Abstract

Few studies have addressed the association of food insecurity with place of residence and perceptions of collective social functioning such as perceived social capital and perceived personal disparity. This study assessed the association between food insecurity and measures of perceived personal disparity and perceived social capital in a region of Central Texas, USA comprised of one urban and six rural counties. Food insecurity, perceived social capital, perceived personal disparity, and sociodemographic control measures were derived from the 2006 Brazos Valley Community Health Assessment on an analytic sample of 1,803 adult participants (74% response rate). Robust multinomial regression models examined associations between food insecurity and perceived personal disparity, perceived social capital, education, age, residence in a poor or low-income household, minority group membership, and rural residence. A model was estimated for food insecurity (n = 1803, p < 0.0001). Residents with low social capital, higher levels of perceived personal disparity, rural residence, residence in a low-income or poor household, minority group membership, and lower levels of educational attainment were more likely to experience food insecurity. Rural residence (p = 0.021) was significant only for the comparison between those who never, and those who often experienced food insecurity, and findings for the stratified rural and urban samples were roughly equivalent to the combined sample. Individual level measures of collective social functioning are important correlates of food insecurity. In this study, both perceived personal disparity and perceived social capital play an important role, regardless of rural or urban residence.

Place and food insecurity: a critical review and synthesis of the literature

“…In terms of characteristics of the target populations studied, seven of the eighteen studies examined adults of varying ages (37)(38)(39)(43)(44)(45)(46) , seven explicitly examined families with children (sometimes with data collected using the child as the sampling unit) (40,42,(47)(48)(49)(50)(51) , three focused on seniors (41,52,53) , and one sampled a range of ages (children and adults) (54) . Seven out of the eighteen studies (39 %) focused exclusively on low-income or ethnic subgroups (39,44,46,(48)(49)(50)(51) .…”

“…Five studies used the six-item short form of the USDA Food Security Scale (37)(38)(39)42,47) , three studies used items from the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project in the National Health and Nutrition Examination (NHANES) III surveys (46,50,53) , and one study was based on items administered in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (41) . The three Australian studies (45,52,54) and Dean and Sharkey (2011) (43) adapted and used items from the Radimer/Cornell measure, while Sharkey et al (2011) used an adapted version of the complete Radimer/Cornell measure (49) . Eight studies investigated different types or degrees of severity of food insecurity, by using either more than one questionnaire item or different thresholds for the USDA eighteen-item Food Security Scale or the Radimer/Cornell Scale (41,(43)(44)(45)(48)(49)(50)(51) .…”

“…The three Australian studies (45,52,54) and Dean and Sharkey (2011) (43) adapted and used items from the Radimer/Cornell measure, while Sharkey et al (2011) used an adapted version of the complete Radimer/Cornell measure (49) . Eight studies investigated different types or degrees of severity of food insecurity, by using either more than one questionnaire item or different thresholds for the USDA eighteen-item Food Security Scale or the Radimer/Cornell Scale (41,(43)(44)(45)(48)(49)(50)(51) .…”

“…The most common place characteristic examined was living location, as measured on the urban-rural continuum; eleven studies assessed the potential impact of this arealevel exposure on food insecurity (37)(38)(39)(40)43,45,47,(50)(51)(52)(53) . Most often, this place factor was simply defined as urban v. rural with no clear explanation of the administrative boundaries or criteria used.…”

Spatial and Psychosocial Influences on Food Access in Rural Appalachia

“…In reality there is much overlap with these divisions. For example, spatial access to stores (community food environment) and foods stocked inside stores (Consumer food environment) are both major influences on a consumer's food choices (Dean & Sharkey, 2011). Community food environment remains a relevant concept for focusing on food access in whole communities rather than specific institutions, but its boundaries as a concept require flexibility for incorporating complex phenomena inherent in community ecologies.…”