Household Food Insecurity Scores are Higher among Adults Infected with COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Online Study among an Iranian Population

  1. Naser Kalantari
  2. Hassan Eini-Zinab
  3. Neda Ezzeddin
  4. Nastaran Miri

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction: Food insecurity has negative impacts on health, including the function of the immune system. The association between food insecurity and COVID-19 infection rates has not been fully understood. This study aimed to examine whether food-insecure households are more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Materials and Methods: This online cross-sectional study was conducted on 2,871 Iranian adults (31 provinces), from August to September 2020. Demographic and socio-economic information was collected using a questionnaire. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) was used for assessing household food insecurity. The data analysis was performed by SPSS.22, using Chi-square test, ANOVA test, and Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. Results: The findings indicated that healthcare personnel were at higher risk of COVID-19 (CI = 1.90, 7.05; OR = 3.66; P < 0.001). It was also shown that HFIAS scores were significantly higher among infected people compared to non-infected (CI = 1.00, 1.05; OR = 1.03; P < 0.05). Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men (CI = 0.41, 0.87; OR = 0.60; P < 0.05). Conclusions: Based on the results, in addition to long-term policies to improve food security, policymakers are recommended to implement short-term policies to reduce the vulnerability of the community to COVID-19 virus.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.18502/jehsd.v6i4.8151
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.15.20248221: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The analysis of data was done by IBM SPSS, Version 22.0 software, using Chi-square test, ANOVA test and Multinomial logistic regression model.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The online study has some inevitable limitations, including participation bias. In this study, the participation of young people was higher. The self-reporting form of data gathering, may also have biases. Some people with severe status of COVID-19, may not be able to participate in the study or have not reported their infection, so there may be underreporting in the number of infected people. It is recommended that similar studies, focused on hospitals and health centers, be conducted to examine the association between food insecurity and COVID-19 infection status.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.15.20248221v1 on medRxiv