traditional and alternative food security interventions: effects on health and food security
DESCRIPTION
TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE FOOD SECURITY INTERVENTIONS: EFFECTS ON HEALTH AND FOOD SECURITY. 29 may 2014 Dr Federico Roncarolo. Food insecurity in the world. FAO, IFAD and WFP: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013.The multiple dimensions of food security . Rome, 2013. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE FOOD SECURITY INTERVENTIONS: EFFECTS ON
HEALTH AND FOOD SECURITY
29 may 2014Dr Federico Roncarolo
FAO, IFAD and WFP:The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013.The multiple dimensions of food security. Rome, 2013
Food insecurity in the world
Food insecurity in Canada
PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity
Food insecurity by province
PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity
ENQUÊTE SUR LES EFFETS DES INTERVENTIONS
COMMUNAUTAIRES EN SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE
CHAIRE CACIS - Chaire Approches Communautaires et Inégalités de Santé
Intervention strategy Characteristics Type of relation
Traditional (food banks, soup kitchens, food boxes)
Interventions based on food gathering and redistribution, they try to answer to an immediate and daily need of food
Food assistanceFood aid
Alternative (collective kitchens, community gardens, buying groups)
Interventions developing networks of mutual aid and social participation through skills developments
Mutual aid integration Social integration
Social transformation (Community-supported agriculture, food-related community economic development)
Interventions aimed at the participation in collective actions, with the objective of increasing citizens’ empowerment on individual and collective food security
Empowerment of people and collectivity
Intervention strategies in food insecurity
To assess the effects of interventions conducted by community organizations in the Montreal Metropolitan Region to address the food security and health of their
users, and to generate evidence-based data on the effects of two different strategies to fight food insecurity
Objective
• Longitudinal study of newly recruited participants in traditional and alternative food security interventions.
• Participants selected in a two stage cluster sampling frame.
Description of the study
• Sample units: community organizations working on food security in the Montreal Metropolitan Region
• Analysis units: participants in food security interventions individuals between 18 and 65 years of age registered for the first time, and for less than 6 months in selected MMR food security community organizations
Population
• Organizations: • 50 new participants for traditional
interventions• 30 new participants for alternative
interventions
• Participants: • between 18 and 65 years of age• registered for the first time, and for less than 6
months
Inclusion criteria
30-45 minutes questionnaires administered face to face in French or in English, according to the preference of
participants.
Follow-up nine months after the first interview
Methods
T1 T2 Traditional interventions
711 372 (52.3%)
Alternative interventions
113 78 (69%)
Total 824 450 (54.6%)
• 16 organizations implementing traditional interventions
• 6 organizations implementing alternative interventions
Particpants at T1 and T2
Traditional intervention
Alternative intervention
Total
The organization quit the study
25 (7.4%) -- 25 (6.7%)
Not found 228 (67.3%) 14 (40%) 242 (64.7%)Not available/rejected
86 (25.4%) 18 (51.4%) 104 (27.8%)
Not concordant data -- 3 (8.6%) 3 (0.8%)Total 339 (100%) 35 (100%) 374 (100%)
Missing at the follow-up
Descriptive characteristics of new participants in traditional and
alternative interventions Traditional
interventions
n. (%)
Alternative intervention
s n. (%)
Total n. (%)
Gender* MaleFemale
332 (46.7)365 (51.3)
22 (19.5)87 (77.0)
354 (43.0)452 (54.9)
Age <30 years30-49 years50-65 years
117 (16.5)370 (52.0)222 (31.2)
24 (21.2)58 (51.3)29 (25.7)
141 (17.1)428 (51.9)251 (30.5)
Country of birth*
CanadaOthers
466 (65.5)241 (33.9)
47 (41.6)65 (57.5)
513 (62.3)306 (37.1)
Marital status*
Married/ common law spouseSingleOther (separated, divorced, widowed)
214 (30.1)340 (47.8)139 (19.5)
45 (39.8)34 (30.1)29(25.7)
259 (31.4)374 (45.4)168 (20.4)
Education* Less than a high school diplomaSecondary (high) school diploma or equivalentLess than a bachelor degreeBachelor’s degree or above
197 (27.7)186 (26.2) 196 (27.6)107 (15.1)
25 (22.1)25 (22.1) 26 (23.0)34 (30.1)
222 (26.9)211 (25.6) 222 (26.9)141 (45.2)
Number of other people in household beside the respondent, mean (sd)*
1.61 (1.50) 2.20 (1.55) 1.70 (1.52)*p<0.05
T1 T20%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
10.5 10.3
32
14.1
27.4
21.8
7
33.3
5.1
24.4
3.2
16
3.820.5
11 23.1
NSP/NRPMore then 40000$30000-40000$20000-30000$15000-20000$10000-15000$5000-10000$Less than 5000$
Traditional AlternativeI n t e r v e n t i o n
46.2%
69.9%
Household income
Food security
V. Van Gogh, 1885: The potatoes eaters
Food security scaleDefinition of security 10-items
adults food security scale
8-items adults food security scale
Household food security
Security (no or 1 indication of difficulties with income-related food access)
0 or 1 positive answers
0 or 1 positive answers
Adult + child in insecurity
Moderate insecurity (indication of compromise in quality and/or quantity of food consumed )
2 to 5 positive answers
2 to 4 positive answers
Adult OR child in moderate food insecurity
Severe insecurity(indication of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns)
≥ 6 positive answers
≥5 positive answers
Adult OR child in severe food insecurity
Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2, Nutrition (2004)— Income-Related Household Food Security in Canada
Food security: adults
T1 T2 T1 T20%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
11.623.4 32.4 40
3938.3
39.437.3
49.438.3 28.2 22.6
Severe insecur-ityModerate insecur-itySecurity
Traditional Alternative
OR: 0.47 (i.c.95%: 0.19-1.15)OR: 0.35 (i.c.95%: 0.23-0.53)
p=0.902
I n t e r v e n t i o n s
Food security: children
T1 T2 T1 T20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
24.340.3 45.7
61.8
58.151.4 42.8
35.3
17.6 8.3 11.4 5.9
Severe insecurityModerate insecuritySecurity
OR: 0.42 (i.c.95%: 0.08-2.15)OR: 0.36 (i.c.95%: 0.18-0.69)
p=0.698
Traditional AlternativeI n t e r v e n t i o n s
Food security: households
T1 T2 T1 T20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10.5 20.932.4 38.7
39.840.2
36.638.7
49.7 38.9 31 22.7
Severe insecurityModerate insecuritySecurity
Alternative
OR: 0.46 (i.c.95%: 0.20-2.02)OR: 0.38 (i.c.95%: 0.27-0.55)
p=0.738
TraditionalI n t e r v e n t i o n s
Health and wellness
Matisse, 1909: The dance
T1 T260626466687072
63.97
66.91
70.6270.59
Physical component
TraditionalAlternative
T1 T250
55
60
65
70
75
58.13
63.8666.06
71.1
Mental component
Beta coeff : Trad: 2.33 (i.c.95%: -0.25;4.91)Altern: -2.20 (i.c.95% : -7.87;3.47)Interaction time-group: p=0.222
Beta coeff : Trad: 6.01 (i.c.95%: 3.90-8.11)Altern: 4.09 (i.c.95% : -0.85;9.03)Interaction time-group: p=0.573
Health and wellness
Percentile scale
Conclusions
• Participants in traditional and alternative interventions present significant differences before starting the interventions
• Does food insecurity interventions increase inequalities among the most vulnerable who attend traditional interventions and participants in alternatives?
• If we just consider T1 and T2 results, it seems that the effects of traditional interventions are effective in reducing food insecurity and improving mental health
• Alternative interventions seem to have some positive effects concerning food insecurity and mental health although they never reach a statistical significant level
Giuseppe Arcimboldo, 1573: Summer
Thank you!