A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Properties of the Household Food Security Survey Module Scale in Young Adults with Diabetes. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) was not tailored to people with chronic diseases or young adults (YAs).

Objectives: We aim to evaluate whether the 18-item HFSSM meets assumptions underlying the scale among YAs with diabetes.

Methods: Data from 1887 YAs with youth-onset type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes were used from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, 2016-2019, and on 925 who returned for the SEARCH Food Security Cohort Study, 2018-2021, all of whom had completed the HFSSM. Guttman scaling properties (affirmation of preceding less severe items) and Rasch model properties (probability to answer an item based on difficulty level) were assessed.

Results: Items 3 (balanced meals) and 6 (eating less than one should) were affirmed more frequently than expected (nonmonotonic response pattern). At 1.2%-3.5%, item nonresponse was rare among type 1 diabetes but higher among type 2 diabetes (range: 3.1%-10.6%). Items 9 (not eating the whole day) and 3 did not meet the Guttman scaling properties. Rasch modeling revealed that item 3 had the smallest difficulty parameter. INFIT indices suggested that some responses to item 3 did not match the pattern in the rest of the sample. Classifying household food insecurity (HFI) based on items 1 and 2 compared with other 2-item combinations, including item 3, revealed a substantial undercount of HFI ranging from 5% to 8% points.

Conclusions: Use of the HFSSM among YAs with diabetes could potentially result in biased HFI reporting and affect estimates of HFI prevalence in this population.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10942855PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

type diabetes
16
household food
12
food security
12
security survey
8
survey module
8
young adults
8
guttman scaling
8
scaling properties
8
diabetes
7
item
5

Similar Publications