Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
2.2. Measurements
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Description of Pantry Client Characteristics and FAST Scores
3.2. Associations between Food Pantry Characteristics and FAST Scores
3.3. Analyses of GWS Stratified by Pantry Size and Distribution Methods
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Misiaszek, C.; Buzogany, S.; Freishtat, H. Baltimore City’s Food Environment: 2018 Report. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (January 2018). Available online: https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/baltimore-city-food-environment-2018-report.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Maryland Food Bank. Find Food. Available online: https://mdfoodbank.org/find-food/ (accessed on 25 February 2020).
- Simmet, A.; Depa, J.; Tinnemann, P.; Stroebele-Benschop, N. The dietary quality of food pantry users: A systematic review of existing literature. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 117, 563–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Handforth, B.; Hennink, M.; Schwartz, M.B. A qualitative study of nutrition-based initiatives at selected food banks in the feeding America network. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2013, 113, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernandez, M.L.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Carrascosa, C.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Highlights of current dietary guidelines in five continents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serra-Majem, L.; Tomaino, L.; Dernini, S.; Berry, E.M.; Lairon, D.; de la Cruz, J.N.; Bach-Faig, A.; Donini, L.M.; Medina, F.-X.; Belahsen, R.; et al. Updating the mediterranean diet pyramid towards sustainability: Focus on environmental concerns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Willett, W. Mediterranean dietary pyramid. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin, K.S.; Wu, R.; Wolff, M.; Colantonio, A.G.; Grady, J. A novel food pantry program: Food security, self-sufficiency, and diet-quality outcomes. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 45, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yan, S.; Caspi, C.; Trude, A.C.; Gunen, B.; Gittelsohn, J. How Urban food pantries are stocked and food is distributed: Food pantry manager perspectives from baltimore. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2020, 15, 540–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, A.; Ginsburg, Z.A.; Rubinstein, E.; Frankel, H.J.; Maroko, A.R.; Schechter, C.B.; Stowers, K.C.; Lucan, S.C. Foods and drinks available from urban food pantries: Nutritional quality by item type, sourcing, and distribution method. J. Community Health 2019, 44, 339–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caspi, C.E.; Canterbury, M.; Carlson, S.; Bain, J.; Bohen, L.; Grannon, K.; Peterson, H.; Kottke, T. A behavioural economics approach to improving healthy food selection among food pantry clients. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 2303–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caspi, C.E.; Grannon, K.Y.; Wang, Q.; Nanney, M.S.; King, R.P. Refining and implementing the Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) in food pantries. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 2548–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simmet, A.; Depa, J.; Tinnemann, P.; Stroebele-Benschop, N. The nutritional quality of food provided from food pantries: A systematic review of existing literature. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 117, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanks, C.B. Promoting food pantry environments that encourage nutritious eating behaviors. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 117, 523–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunen, B.; Yan, S.; Adams, L.; Ali, S.; Poirier, L.; Gu, Y.; Craig, H.; Regan, T.; Egan, K.; Gittelsohn, J. Design and implementation of a feasibility trial to promote healthful foods and beverages at baltimore city food pantries using policy, systems and environmental strategies (P04-047-19). Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2019, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Helmstetter, S. Client Choice Pantry Handbook; Akron-Canton Regional Foodbank: Akron, OH, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, K.; Shuckerow, M.; O’Rourke, C.; Schmitz, A. Changing the conversation about hunger: The process of developing freshplace. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2012, 6, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kennedy, E.T.; Ohls, J.; Carlson, S.; Fleming, K. The healthy eating index: Design and applications. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1995, 95, 1103–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Total | Food Pantry Size | Food Distribution Methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n = 74) | Small (n = 21) | Medium (n = 20) | Large (n = 33) | Traditional (n = 45) | Client-Choice (n = 29) | |
Overall (%) | 100 | 28.4 | 27.0 | 44.6 | 60.8 | 39.2 |
Age (in years) mean (SD) | 56.61 (14.34) | 50.81 (12.48) | 59.65 (14.45) | 58.45 (14.70) | 56.42 (14.50) | 56.90 (14.33) |
Female (%) | 55.4 | 66.7 | 65.0 | 42.4 | 55.6 | 55.2 |
Race (%) | ||||||
Black/African | 89.2 | 90.5 | 90.0 | 87.9 | 93.3 | 82.8 |
Others | 10.8 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 12.1 | 6.7 | 17.2 |
Household Size (Number of people) (mean (SD)) | 2.81 (1.62) | 3.76 (1.61) | 2.45 (1.32) | 2.42 (1.58) | 2.73 (1.64) | 2.93 (1.60) |
Number of Children in household (mean (SD)) | 0.85 (1.27) | 1.43 (1.50) | 0.50 (0.76) | 0.70 (1.26) | 0.78 (1.26) | 0.97 (1.30) |
SNAP 1 = yes (%) | 57.5 | 71.4 | 55.0 | 50.0 | 61.4 | 51.7 |
WIC 2 = yes (%) | 5.4 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 6.8 | 3.6 |
Marital Status (%) | ||||||
Married | 8.1 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 6.1 | 6.7 | 10.3 |
Unmarr. w/part. | 12.2 | 14.3 | 10.0 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 13.8 |
Unmarr. w/o part. | 73.0 | 61.9 | 80.0 | 75.8 | 77.8 | 65.5 |
Other | 6.8 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 4.4 | 10.3 |
Employment (%) | ||||||
Empl. 30+ h/wk | 10.8 | 23.8 | 5.0 | 6.1 | 15.6 | 3.4 |
Empl. <30 h/wk | 5.4 | 4.8 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 6.9 |
Seasonally empl. | 1.4 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 |
Unemployed | 18.9 | 14.3 | 10.0 | 27.3 | 17.8 | 20.7 |
Retired | 27.0 | 0.0 | 40.0 | 36.4 | 26.7 | 27.6 |
Disabled | 36.5 | 52.4 | 35.0 | 27.3 | 35.6 | 37.9 |
High blood pressure (%) | 62.2 | 66.7 | 70.0 | 54.5 | 55.6 | 72.4 |
Diabetes (%) | 25.7 | 14.3 | 45.0 | 21.2 | 26.7 | 24.1 |
Obesity (%) | 13.5 | 9.5 | 5.0 | 21.2 | 17.8 | 6.9 |
Cancer (%) | 8.1 | 14.3 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 |
FAST score (mean (SD)) | 63.04 (10.38) | 65.49 (6.79) | 62.62 (7.39) | 61.75 (13.37) | 63.92 (11.74) | 61.69 (7.83) |
FAST Score | p | |
---|---|---|
Age (in years) | 0.489 | |
18–35 | 66.8 (12.9) | |
36–55 | 63.7 (9.48) | |
56+ | 62.0 (10.6) | |
Sex | 0.23 | |
Male | 64.7 (10.7) | |
Female | 61.7 (10.1) | |
Race | 0.247 | |
Black/African Am. | 62.7 (10.8) | |
Others | 65.6 (5.4) | |
Household Size (Number of people) | 0.101 | |
1–2 | 65.5 (8.46) | |
3–4 | 60.0 (13.0) | |
5–6 | 60.9 (9.57) | |
Number of Children in household | 0.238 | |
0 | 64.1 (8.65) | |
1–2 | 60.0 (11.6) | |
3+ | 65.6 (14.0) | |
SNAP | 0.147 | |
Yes | 64.6 (8.81) | |
No | 61.0 (12.0) | |
WIC | <0.05 | |
Yes | 51.5 (12.1) | |
No | 63.7 (9.97) | |
Marital Status | 0.909 | |
Married | 60.5 (4.46) | |
Unmarr. w/part. | 64.0 (8.12) | |
Unmarr. w/o part. | 63.3 (11.6) | |
Other | 61.6 (4.74) | |
Employment | 0.606 | |
Empl. 30+ h/wk | 62.5 (14.5) | |
Empl. <30 h/wk | 56.7 (11.2) | |
Seasonally empl. | 65.2 (NA) | |
Unemployed | 64.2 (10.8) | |
Retired | 60.8 (9.85) | |
Disabled | 65.1 (9.36) | |
High blood pressure | 0.657 | |
Yes | 62.6 (8.88) | |
No | 63.7 (12.6) | |
Diabetes | 0.905 | |
Yes | 63.3 (8.08) | |
No | 63.0 (11.1) | |
Obesity | 0.361 | |
Yes | 60.2 (13.6) | |
No | 63.5 (9.85) | |
Cancer | 0.716 | |
Yes | 64.5 (5.37) | |
No | 62.9 (10.7) |
Distribution Methods | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Pantry Size | Client-Choice | Traditional | ||
Overall | 61.7 | 63.9 | 0.371 | |
Small | 66.8 | 64.3 | 0.40 | |
Medium | 57.6 | 67.7 | <0.01 | |
Large | 60.6 | 62.2 | 0.71 | |
Pantry size | ||||
Distribution methods | Small | Medium | Large | |
Overall | 65.5 | 62.6 | 61.7 | 0.430 |
Client-choice | 66.8 | 58.0 | 60.6 | <0.05 |
Traditional | 64.3 | 67.7 | 62.2 | 0.474 |
Categories | Total (n = 74) | Food Pantry Size | Food Distribution Methods | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Small (n = 21) | Medium (n = 20) | Large (n = 33) | p | Traditional (n = 45) | Client-Choice (n = 29) | p | ||
FAST score (mean (SD)) | 63.04 (10.38) | 65.49 (6.79) | 62.62 (7.39) | 61.75 (13.37) | 0.430 | 63.92 (11.74) | 61.69 (7.83) | 0.371 |
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (mean (SD)) | 0.17 (0.21) | 0.30 (0.29) | 0.14 (0.17) | 0.10 (0.12) | <0.01 ** | 0.18 (0.24) | 0.14 (0.15) | 0.342 |
Processed Fruits and Vegetables (mean (SD)) | 0.22 (0.16) | 0.14 (0.15) | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.22 (0.17) | <0.01 ** | 0.23 (0.19) | 0.20 (0.11) | 0.343 |
Whole Grains (mean (SD)) | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.06) | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.177 | 0.04 (0.06) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.407 |
Non-Whole Grains (mean (SD)) | 0.08 (0.11) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.08 (0.09) | 0.10 (0.15) | 0.064 | 0.06 (0.14) | 0.11 (0.06) | 0.093 |
Beverages (mean (SD)) | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.05 (0.07) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | <0.001 *** | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.04 (0.06) | <0.001 *** |
Desserts and Snacks (mean (SD)) | 0.06 (0.12) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.02) | 0.10 (0.17) | <0.05 * | 0.06 (0.16) | 0.04 (0.03) | 0.421 |
Dairy (mean (SD)) | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.06 (0.08) | <0.001 *** | 0.03 (0.08) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.941 |
Vegetable Protein (mean (SD)) | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.05 (0.08) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.04 (0.05) | <0.01 ** | 0.04 (0.06) | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.806 |
Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs (mean (SD)) | 0.15 (0.13) | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.16 (0.07) | 0.21 (0.14) | <0.001 *** | 0.17 (0.15) | 0.11 (0.08) | 0.082 |
Highly Processed Meat | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.03) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.03 (0.05) | <0.05 * | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.01 (0.04) | 0.805 |
Mixed Meals and Side Dishes (mean (SD)) | 0.17 (0.16) | 0.29 (0.10) | 0.19 (0.17) | 0.07 (0.12) | <0.001 *** | 0.16 (0.17) | 0.19 (0.14) | 0.428 |
Condiments, Baking and Cooking (mean (SD)) | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.01 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.09) | 0.02 (0.04) | <0.01 ** | 0.02 (0.03) | 0.06 (0.08) | <0.01 ** |
Infant Formula (mean (SD)) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.544 | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.00 (0.01) | 0.215 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gu, Y.; Ali, S.H.; Yan, S.; Gunen, B.; Park, R.; Poirier, L.; Craig, H.C.; Dong, H.; Gittelsohn, J. Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136979
Gu Y, Ali SH, Yan S, Gunen B, Park R, Poirier L, Craig HC, Dong H, Gittelsohn J. Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136979
Chicago/Turabian StyleGu, Yuxuan, Shahmir H. Ali, Sally Yan, Bengucan Gunen, Reuben Park, Lisa Poirier, Hope C. Craig, Hengjin Dong, and Joel Gittelsohn. 2021. "Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136979
APA StyleGu, Y., Ali, S. H., Yan, S., Gunen, B., Park, R., Poirier, L., Craig, H. C., Dong, H., & Gittelsohn, J. (2021). Associations between Food Pantry Size and Distribution Method and Healthfulness of Foods Received by Clients in Baltimore City Food Pantries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136979