Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
ImportanceFood insecurity is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Little is known about the prevalence of and risks for food insecurity among veterans identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and similar (LGBQ+), a population facing unique social barriers and medical comorbidities.ObjectiveTo examine food insecurity and potential risk factors among LGBQ+ veterans.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study used administrative data from all US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities nationally. Participants included veterans screened for food insecurity between March 1, 2021, and August 31, 2023.ExposurePositive response to food insecurity screening administered in VHA facilities as part of routine clinical care.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence of and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with food insecurity among veterans identifying as LGBQ+ or heterosexual and those with “don’t know” responses regarding their sexual orientation.ResultsOf 3 580 148 veterans screened, the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (0.4) years; 3 192 507 (89.2%) were assigned male sex at birth. A total of 83 292 veterans (2.3%) identified as LGBQ+, and 10 183 (0.3%) had “don’t know” responses. LGBQ+ veterans (5352 [6.4%]) and veterans with “don’t know” responses (635 [6.2%]) were more than twice as likely as heterosexual veterans (90 426 [2.6%]) to have positive screen results for food insecurity. While risk factors for food insecurity were similar for veterans across sexual orientation groups, LGBQ+ veterans had higher rates of several risk factors compared with heterosexual veterans, including age younger than 45 years (45.3% vs 19.5%), female sex assigned at birth (44.1% vs 10.0%), being in a minoritized racial or ethnic group (34.7% vs 29.8%), unmarried or unpartnered status (69.1% vs 39.7%), low income (16.4% vs 14.9%), homelessness or housing instability (10.3% vs 5.4%), anxiety (7.7% vs 4.3%), depression (31.1% vs 19.3%), suicidality (3.6% vs 1.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (42.2% vs 30.2%), substance use disorder (13.1% vs 9.0%), military sexual trauma (24.0% vs 5.4%), and recent intimate partner violence (2.6% vs 1.4%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of veterans screened for food insecurity, LGBQ+ veterans and those with “don’t know” responses for sexual orientation experienced food insecurity at nearly 2.5 times the rate of heterosexual veterans. While risk factors for food insecurity were similar across groups, LGBQ+ veterans faced a higher prevalence of particular risks, including homelessness and several mental health and trauma-related comorbidities. Future work should examine targeted screening and interventions tailored to identifying and addressing food insecurity in this population, given their increased vulnerability and burden of food insecurity.
ImportanceFood insecurity is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Little is known about the prevalence of and risks for food insecurity among veterans identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and similar (LGBQ+), a population facing unique social barriers and medical comorbidities.ObjectiveTo examine food insecurity and potential risk factors among LGBQ+ veterans.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study used administrative data from all US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities nationally. Participants included veterans screened for food insecurity between March 1, 2021, and August 31, 2023.ExposurePositive response to food insecurity screening administered in VHA facilities as part of routine clinical care.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence of and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with food insecurity among veterans identifying as LGBQ+ or heterosexual and those with “don’t know” responses regarding their sexual orientation.ResultsOf 3 580 148 veterans screened, the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (0.4) years; 3 192 507 (89.2%) were assigned male sex at birth. A total of 83 292 veterans (2.3%) identified as LGBQ+, and 10 183 (0.3%) had “don’t know” responses. LGBQ+ veterans (5352 [6.4%]) and veterans with “don’t know” responses (635 [6.2%]) were more than twice as likely as heterosexual veterans (90 426 [2.6%]) to have positive screen results for food insecurity. While risk factors for food insecurity were similar for veterans across sexual orientation groups, LGBQ+ veterans had higher rates of several risk factors compared with heterosexual veterans, including age younger than 45 years (45.3% vs 19.5%), female sex assigned at birth (44.1% vs 10.0%), being in a minoritized racial or ethnic group (34.7% vs 29.8%), unmarried or unpartnered status (69.1% vs 39.7%), low income (16.4% vs 14.9%), homelessness or housing instability (10.3% vs 5.4%), anxiety (7.7% vs 4.3%), depression (31.1% vs 19.3%), suicidality (3.6% vs 1.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (42.2% vs 30.2%), substance use disorder (13.1% vs 9.0%), military sexual trauma (24.0% vs 5.4%), and recent intimate partner violence (2.6% vs 1.4%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of veterans screened for food insecurity, LGBQ+ veterans and those with “don’t know” responses for sexual orientation experienced food insecurity at nearly 2.5 times the rate of heterosexual veterans. While risk factors for food insecurity were similar across groups, LGBQ+ veterans faced a higher prevalence of particular risks, including homelessness and several mental health and trauma-related comorbidities. Future work should examine targeted screening and interventions tailored to identifying and addressing food insecurity in this population, given their increased vulnerability and burden of food insecurity.
Purpose of review New social risk screening standards and quality metrics reward or penalize healthcare delivery organizations for social risk screening. After summarizing the recent literature on social risk screening in pediatric healthcare settings we consider how this evidence – and persistent evidence gaps – might inform future standards development. Recent findings Reported social risk screening rates, measures, and modality differ greatly across recent work. Although many caregivers report acceptability of screening, experiences and expectations around effective follow-up vary. Likewise, although most frontline clinical providers find screening acceptable, they report significant implementation challenges related to time constraints, insufficient workforce, and availability of social services. Qualitative findings suggest opportunities to improve screening implementation. Literature examining the impacts of screening continues to focus on immediate posited impacts of assistance programs; few studies assess health outcomes. Summary The existing literature does not clearly indicate whether, when, how, or for whom social risk screening standards focused on screening quantity will contribute to child health or health equity. Informed by studies on patient experience, quality measures focused on screening quantity (e.g. how many individuals are screened) should be paired with efforts to improve screening quality (i.e. patient/caregiver screening experience) as well as social and health outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.