Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:43:33.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Adverse childhood experiences and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years in the USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2020

Philip Baiden*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, 211 S. Cooper St., Box 19129, Arlington, TX76019, USA
Catherine A LaBrenz
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, 211 S. Cooper St., Box 19129, Arlington, TX76019, USA
Shawndaya Thrasher
Affiliation:
College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
Gladys Asiedua-Baiden
Affiliation:
Tarrant Community College, Arlington, TX, USA
Boniface Harerimana
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada
*
*Corresponding author: Email philip.baiden@uta.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Although studies have examined the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACE) and health and mental health outcomes, few studies have investigated the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years in the USA. The objective of this study is to investigate the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years.

Design:

The data used in this study came from the 2016–2017 National Survey of Children’s Health. Data were analysed using multinomial logistic regression with household food insecurity as the outcome variable.

Setting:

United States.

Participants:

An analytic sample of 17 543 children aged 0–5 years (51·4% boys).

Results:

Of the 17 543 respondents, 83·7% experienced no childhood adversity. About one in twenty (4·8%) children experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity. Controlling for other factors, children with one adverse childhood experience had 1·43 times the risk of mild food insecurity (95 % CI 1·25, 1·63) and 2·33 times the risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity (95 % CI 1·84, 2·95). The risk of mild food insecurity among children with two or more ACE was 1·5 times higher (95 % CI 1·24, 1·81) and that of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was 3·96 times higher (95 % CI 3·01, 5·20), when compared with children with no childhood adversity.

Conclusion:

Given the critical period of development during the first few years of life, preventing ACE and food insecurity and early intervention in cases of adversity exposure is crucial to mitigate their negative impact on child development.

Type
Research paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Household food insecurity or a household’s inability to provide adequate and proper nutritious food due to lack of money and resources(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1) has been identified as a national public health problem in the USA(Reference Drennen, Coleman and de Cuba2,Reference Nord3) . According to a recent 2018 report by the US Department of Agriculture, more than 37 million adults lived in food-insecure households(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1). The report also noted that 11·1 % of US households were food insecure during the past year, with 4·3 % experiencing very low food security(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1). Prevalence of household food insecurity among young children in the USA is a significant concern as the lack of nutritious food among infants, toddlers and preschoolers has been linked to developmental and behavioural problems, hospitalisation and poor health outcomes later in life(Reference Gundersen and Ziliak4Reference Schmeer and Piperata6). Moreover, the periods of infancy, toddlerhood and preschool are critical developmental phases for brain development(Reference Dubois, Dehaene-Lambertz and Kulikova7,Reference Zhang, Shi and Wei8) . Thus, the lack of access to nutritious food during these crucial developmental phases can have adverse long-term effects on child development and overall well-being(Reference Drennen, Coleman and de Cuba2).

Although infants and young children may be disproportionately affected by household food insecurity(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1), few studies in the USA have examined household food insecurity among this population. Notably, prior studies on household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years have been conducted abroad in countries such as Bangladesh(Reference Ahmed, Mahfuz and Ireen9), Ghana and Malawi(Reference Adams, Vosti and Ayifah10), India and Ethiopia(Reference Petrikova11), the Democratic Republic of the Congo(Reference Mukuku, Mutombo and Kamona12), Uganda(Reference Kikafunda, Agaba and Bambona13) and Mexico(Reference Sánchez-Pérez, Hernán and Ríos-González14). Prior studies from the USA have primarily examined household food insecurity among children aged 0–17 years(Reference Schmeer and Piperata6,Reference Iriart, Boursaw and Rodrigues15,Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16) .

Factors such as low socioeconomic status(Reference Schmeer and Piperata6,Reference Adams, Hoffmann and Rosenberg17Reference Johnson and Markowitz19) , racial or ethnic minority status(Reference Rose and Bodor20) and poor caregiver mental or physical health(Reference King21) have been linked to household food insecurity among children and adolescents in the USA. Findings regarding the association between receipt of welfare assistance and household food insecurity are mixed, with some studies showing cash or food assistance to be associated with a higher risk of household food insecurity(Reference King21). In contrast, others have found that receipt of cash or food assistance decreases the risk of household food insecurity(Reference Mabli and Worthington22,Reference Nord23) . The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal nutrition assistance program in the USA and aims to reduce hunger and improve the health and well-being of low-income individuals and families(24). Recently, Fernald and Gosliner(Reference Fernald and Gosliner25) reviewed the literature on receipt of welfare benefits and household food insecurity and noted that although receipt of SNAP benefits was associated with lower odds of household food insecurity, more than half of households that received SNAP benefits remained food insecure. This may suggest that persistent household food insecurity may be a consequence of the most at-risk households self-selecting into SNAP benefits or that SNAP benefits are insufficient to lift households out of food insecurity(Reference Seligman and Berkowitz26).

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE), which typically include emotional, physical or sexual abuse during childhood, living with a caregiver who has a substance use disorder or mental health issues or parental divorce, among others(Reference Dube, Felitti and Dong27), have also gained the attention of researchers, policymakers and practitioners. Exposure to ACE during the first 18 years of life is known to have a long-term negative impact on child outcomes such as development(Reference Sun, Knowles and Patel28), physical health(Reference Hughes, Bellis and Hardcastle29), depression and anxiety(Reference Chapman, Whitfield and Felitti30Reference Larkin, Felitti and Anda32), suicidal behaviours(Reference Baiden, Stewart and Fallon33), alcohol, tobacco and illicit substance use(Reference Traube, James and Zhang34) and risky sexual behaviours(Reference Dube, Felitti and Dong27,Reference Anda, Felitti and Bremner35Reference Noll, Haralson and Butler37) .

There is a burgeoning number of studies that have found ACE to be closely linked to household food insecurity(Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16,Reference Chilton, Knowles and Rabinowich38) . For instance, Jackson and colleagues(Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16) examined the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0 to 17 years using data from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). They found that compared with children with no ACE, children with three or more ACE had 8·14 times higher risk of experiencing moderate-to-severe food insecurity. Previous studies with adult samples have also found social and emotional support to be a protective factor against ACE and its impact on health and mental health outcomes(Reference LaBrenz, Dell and Fong39). Yet, as with general studies on household food insecurity, little is known about the association between ACE and household food insecurity among infants and young children in the USA. A systematic review by Shanker et al.(Reference Shankar, Chung and Frank5) found only three prior studies on household food insecurity among infants and toddlers. Although two of these studies(Reference Hernandez and Jacknowitz40,Reference Zaslow, Bronte-Tinkew and Capps41) used data from the US, neither took into account the effect of ACE in understanding household food insecurity outcomes. Given the impact of both ACE and household food insecurity across the lifespan and the particular vulnerability of infants and young children to poor nutrition and health outcomes(Reference Baiden, Boateng and Dako-Gyeke42), it is important to understand this association and potential protective factors that could help build resilience.

Theoretical framework

Recent advances in developmental neurobiology have enhanced our understanding of the impact of early childhood adversity on developmental outcomes(Reference Insana, Banihashemi and Herringa43). Notably, a developmental neurobiological perspective recognises that chronic stress or chronic exposure to adversity during the first years of life can disrupt normal brain development, leading to dysregulation and asynchronous brain development(Reference Perry44). Specific to household food insecurity, deficits in nutrition during these first years of life can result in long-term negative outcomes such as behavioural abnormalities, poor learning outcomes and decreased attention span. As a result, some experts have termed the ‘first 1000 d’ as a golden age of opportunity to establish optimal nutrition(Reference Cusick and Georgieff45). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the association between ACE and household food insecurity among infants and toddlers, as well as possible risk or protective factors to better address food insecurity during the first few years of life. Such an understanding could help to provide a stable base for child development.

Objectives and hypotheses

Studies examining household food insecurity tend to rely on children of school-going age(Reference Schmeer and Piperata6,Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16,Reference Huang and King18,Reference Mabli and Worthington22,Reference Howard46) , thereby masking important developmental differences in young children’s experiences of household food insecurity. This study sought to address the gap in the literature by examining the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years in the USA. Based on prior literature, we hypothesised the following: (1) there will be a positive association between ACE and household food insecurity, (2) higher socioeconomic status will decrease the risk of household food insecurity and (3) perceived parental emotional or social support will decrease the risk of household food insecurity.

Data and methods

Data source and participants

The data used in this study came from the 2016–2017 NSCH conducted by the US Census Bureau on behalf of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration and Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Additional support in measuring household food insecurity among children was provided by the US Department of Agriculture. Detailed information about the NSCH, including the objectives, methodology and sampling procedure, is provided in its methodology report(47). In brief, the NSCH is a representative national survey designed to (1) estimate national and state-level prevalence for a variety of child and family health measures, (2) generate information about children, families, schools and neighbourhoods to help guide policymakers, advocates and researchers and (3) provide baseline estimates for federal and state performance measures, Healthy People 2020 objectives and state-level needs assessments. The 2016–2017 NSCH covers topics such as demographic, health and functional status, health care access and utilisation, early childhood (0–5 years) issues, issues specific to middle childhood and adolescence (6–17 years), family functioning, parental health status and family and neighbourhood and community characteristics. The 2016–2017 NSCH covered children aged 0–17 years who live in households nationally and in each state. There were a total of 71 811 (weighted n 73 387 211) children and adolescents in the 2016–2017 NSCH. The overall weighted response rate was 40·7 % for 2016 and 37·4 % for 2017. The analyses presented in this study are restricted to children aged 0–5 years with valid data on the outcome and explanatory variables. This resulted in an analytic sample size of 17 543. The 2016–2017 NSCH data have been de-identified and are publicly available; hence, no institutional review board approval was required.

Variables

Outcome variable

The outcome variable investigated in this study was household food insecurity and was measured as a nominal variable. In the 2016–2017 NSCH, primary caregivers were asked: which of these statements best describes the food situation in your household in the past 12 months? With the following response options ‘1 = we could always afford to eat good nutritious meals’, ‘2 = we could always afford enough to eat but not always the kinds of food we should eat’, ‘3 = sometimes we could not afford enough to eat’ and ‘4 = often we could not afford enough to eat’. Following the recommendation of past studies(Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16,Reference Bocquier, Vieux and Lioret48Reference Leung, Williams and Villamor51) , respondents who indicated that they could sometimes or often not afford enough to eat were considered as experiencing moderate-to-severe food insecurity and were coded as 2. Respondents who indicated that they could always afford enough to eat but not always the kinds of nutritious food were considered as experiencing mild food insecurity and were coded as 1. Respondents who indicated that they could always afford to eat good nutritious meals were considered food secure and were coded 0. The item used in measuring household food insecurity in this study was closely related to the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the US Department of Agriculture(Reference Leung and Villamor50Reference Alaimo, Olson and Frongillo52).

Explanatory variable

The main explanatory variable examined in this study was ACE score. The ACE measure was based solely on primary caregiver reports. Primary caregivers were asked ‘to the best of your knowledge, has this child EVER experienced any of the following?’: (1) a parent or caregiver divorced or separated, (2) a parent or caregiver died, (3) a parent or caregiver served time in jail, (4) saw or heard parents or adults slap, hit, kick punch one another in the home, (5) was a victim of violence or witnessed violence in the neighbourhood, (6) lived with anyone who was mentally ill, suicidal or severely depressed, (7) lived with anyone who had a problem with alcohol or drugs and (8) treated or judged unfairly due to race/ethnicity. Primary caregivers were asked to indicate yes = 1 if the child ever experienced this form of adversity and no = 0 if the child had not experienced this form of adversity. These measures of ACE have been used in previous studies to understand the link between ACE and maternal and child health outcomes(Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16,Reference Crouch, Radcliff and Hung53,Reference LaBrenz, Panisch and Lawson54) . A count measure of ACE score was then created by summing each item to arrive at the total number of ACE experienced. Scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more ACE. Due to the non-normal distribution of scores on ACE, scores of 2 or more were combined into one category and treated as an ordinal variable in the analysis (0, 1 and ≥2).

Other covariates examined in this study included primary caregiver’s level of education, poverty level, receipt of cash or food assistance, emotional support, self-rated physical health of the primary caregiver and mental/emotional health of the primary caregiver. Primary caregiver’s level of education was coded into ‘0 = High school or less’, ‘1 = Some college or technical school’ and ‘2 = College degree or higher’. Household poverty/income level was measured based on the federal poverty level (FPL) and was coded into the following categories ‘0 = 0–99 % FPL’, ‘1 = 100–199 % FPL’ ‘2 = 200–399 % FPL’ and ‘3 = 400 % or above FPL’. Receipt of food or cash assistance was measured as a composite measure based on responses to the following four survey items that ask about whether someone in the child’s family received: (1) benefits from the Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, (2) cash assistance from government welfare programme, (3) Food Stamps or SNAP benefits or (4) free or reduced-cost breakfasts or lunches at school during the past 12 months. Primary caregiver’s physical health status was coded into ‘0 = good’ v. ‘1 = poor’. Similarly, primary caregiver’s mental/emotional health status was coded into ‘0 = good’ v. ‘1 = poor’. Lastly, a measure of caregiver emotional support was included as a binary variable. Respondents who answered yes to the question ‘During the past 12 months, was there someone that you could turn to for day-to-day emotional support with parenting or raising children?’ were coded 1; otherwise, they were coded 0.

Demographic variables

The study controlled for the following demographic variables, age of child and caregiver, sex of child, immigration status of child and race/ethnicity. Both child’s age and caregivers age were measured in years as a continuous variable. Sex of child was coded as ‘0 = male’ and ‘1 = female’. Children born in the USA were coded 0, whereas children born outside the US were coded 1. Lastly, race/ethnicity as coded into ‘0 = non-Hispanic White’, ‘1 = non-Hispanic Black’, ‘2 = Hispanic’ and ‘3 = Other race/ethnicity’.

Data analyses

Data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analytic techniques. First, the general distribution of all the variables included in the analysis was examined using percentages for categorical variables and mean and sd for continuous variables. Second, bivariate associations between household food insecurity and the categorical variables were examined using Pearson χ 2 test of association. The main analysis involved the use of multinomial logistic regression to examine the association between ACE and household food insecurity while controlling for the effects of child and caregiver/parent’s characteristics and other covariates. We opted for multinomial logistic regression, given that the outcome variable (household food insecurity) was measured as a nominal variable with more than two categories (i.e. food-secure, mild food insecurity and moderate-to-severe food insecurity). Relative risk ratios (RRR) were reported together with their 95 % CI. Variables were considered significant if the P value was <0·05. Stata’s ‘svy’ command was used to account for the weighting and complex survey design employed by the NSCH. All analyses were performed using Stata version 14.

Results

Distribution of adverse childhood experiences

Table 1 shows the general distribution of ACE. Of the 17 543 respondents, 83·7 % experienced no ACE, 11·3 % experienced one ACE and 5 % experienced two or more ACE. The most prevalent types of ACE were parental separation/divorce (9·3 %), living with someone who was mentally ill, suicidal or severely depressed (4 %), living with someone who had a problem with alcohol or drugs (3·5 %) and having a parent or guardian who had served time in jail (2·8 %). The prevalence of other types of ACE was less than 2 %.

Table 1 Distribution of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) (n 17 543)

Sample characteristics

Table 2 shows the general distribution of the variables examined in this study. About one in twenty (4·8 %) children experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity, 23·6 % experienced mild food insecurity and 71·6 % were food secure. The average age of children in this sample was 2·48 (sd 1·71 years), and the average age of caregivers was 30·23 (sd 5·62 years). Slighty more than half of the children were boys (51·4 %) and <3 % were born outside the USA. More than half (56·4 %) of the children were non-Hispanic White, 9·9 % were non-Hispanic Black, 21·7 % were Hispanic and 12 % identified as ‘Other’ race/ethnicity. Regarding caregivers, most had a college degree or higher (57·7 %), 22 % had some college or technical education and 10·3 % had high school or less education. With respect to poverty level, 18·2 % of children lived in households with income below the federal poverty level. More than a third of the children (35·1 %) lived in households that received cash or food assistance. About five in six caregivers (82·9 %) had someone to turn to for emotional support with parenting or raising children. A little over 4 % of caregivers rated their mental/emotional health to be poor and 4 % rated their physical health to be poor.

Table 2 Sample characteristics (n 17 543)

FPL, federal poverty level.

Bivariate association between food insecurity and categorical variables

As shown in Table 3, a significant bivariate association was observed between household food insecurity and a number of categorical variables. About one in four children (22·5 %) who had two or more ACE compared with 11·4 % of children who had one ACE, and 2·9 % of children who had no ACE experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity (χ 2(4) = 1193·45, P < 0·0001). One in ten children whose primary caregivers had some college or technical education compared with 9 % of children whose primary caregivers had high school or less education, and 1·2 % of children whose primary caregivers had college education of higher experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity (χ 2(4) = 2012·43, P < 0·0001). Poverty level was inversely associated with household food insecurity (χ 2(6) = 2630·19, P < 0·0001). The proportion of children that experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity was greater if their primary caregiver received cash/food assistance or had poor physical, mental or emotional health. Children whose primary caregivers had someone they could turn to for emotional support with parenting or raising children were less likely to experience moderate-to-severe food insecurity.

Table 3 Bivariate association between food insecurity and categorical variables (n 17 543)

ACE, adverse childhood experiences; FPL, federal poverty level.

Multinomial logistic regression examining the association between adverse childhood experience and household food insecurity

Table 4 shows the multinomial logistic regression results examining the association between ACE and household food insecurity while adjusting for the effects of other factors. Compared with children with no ACE, among children with two or more ACE, the risk of mild food insecurity was 1·5 times higher (RRR = 1·50, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 1·24, 1·81), and the risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was nearly four times higher (RRR = 3·96, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 3·01, 5·20) both when compared with children who were food secure. Among children with one ACE, the risk of mild food insecurity was 1·43 times higher (RRR = 1·43, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 1·25, 1·63), and the risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was 2·33 times higher (RRR = 2·33, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 1·84, 2·95) both when compared with children who were food secure. Each additional year increase in caregiver’s age decreased the risk of mild food insecurity (RRR = 0·98, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 0·97, 0·98) and moderate-to-severe food insecurity (RRR = 0·98, P < 0·05, 95 % CI 0·96, 1·00) by a factor of 2 %. The risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was higher among children with primary caregivers who had some college or technical school education (RRR = 1·38, P < 0·01, 95 % CI 1·10, 1·74), received food or cash assistance (RRR = 5·47, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 4·29, 6·99), perceived their physical health (RRR = 3·08, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 2·24, 4·24) or mental health to be poor (RRR = 3·09, P < 0·001, 95 % CI 2·28, 4·19). A similar pattern of results was obtained when comparing mild food insecure households to food-secure households. However, the risk of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was lower for children with a primary caregiver who had a college degree or higher, living in high-income households or with a primary caregiver who had someone to turn to for emotional support with parenting or raising children.

Table 4 Multinomial logistic regression results predicting food insecurity among children under 5 (n 17 543)

RRR, relative risk ratios; FPL, federal poverty level; ACE, adverse childhood experiences.

Model pseudo R square = 0.1909.

Discussion

This study examined the association between ACE and household food insecurity among a nationally representative sample of children aged 0–5 years. Approximately 4·8 % of children experienced moderate-to-severe household food insecurity and 23·6 % experienced mild food insecurity, while 35·1 % received cash or food assistance. The finding that 4·8 % of children aged 0–5 years experienced moderate-to-severe food insecurity is consistent with a national report by Coleman-Jensen et al.(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1) who found that 4·3 % of US households experienced very low food insecurity in 2018. Consistent with prior literature on older individuals(Reference Jackson, Chilton and Johnson16,Reference Sun, Knowles and Patel28) , ACE were associated with household food insecurity. Notably, children with one ACE had greater risk of mild food insecurity and moderate-to-severe food insecurity when compared with children with no ACE. Moreover, the risk of mild food insecurity among children with two or more ACE was 2·33 times higher and that of moderate-to-severe food insecurity was 3·96 times higher when compared with children with no ACE. Indeed, the strength of the association between ACE and household food insecurity among children ages 0–5 years might indicates a particularly detrimental impact of adversity exposure for this population. Also consistent with prior literature(Reference Schmeer and Piperata6) and our second hypothesis, higher socioeconomic status was negatively associated with household food insecurity. Contrary to prior findings(Reference Rose and Bodor20), this study found no association between child demographic characteristics and household food insecurity.

After adjusting for the effect of ACE and socioeconomic factors, receipt of cash or food assistance, parental emotional support and parental physical or mental health were linked to household food insecurity. It is possible recipients of food or cash assistance may have higher rates of food insecurity prior to program enrollment. Prior research has found that up to 56·5 % of households classified as having low food security participate in cash or food assistance programmes(Reference Coleman-Jensen, Matthew and Christian1). Notably, outcomes associated with ACE in prior literature, such as poor parental mental and physical health, were also indicative of food insecurity. This is consistent with previous research among samples of older children(Reference King21).

Results from this study also supported our third hypothesis that parental emotional support would be negatively associated with food insecurity. Prior literature has also found social or emotional support to be a protective factor against ACE and their impact(Reference LaBrenz, Panisch and Lawson54). Thus, providers that work with families of young children might utilise interventions that increase social and emotional support networks to build protective factors and resilience, especially among those at-risk of ACE exposure.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study. First, the data are cross-sectional; hence, causality cannot be established; only an association can be concluded. It is possible that some children may have experienced household food insecurity before they experience childhood adversity. It is also possible that the experience of household food insecurity could lead to certain types of adversities, such as family violence(Reference Jackson, Lynch and Helton55). A study that followed infants and toddlers would help establish the link between ACE and household food insecurity and determine whether there is a bi-directional association between ACE and household food insecurity among children aged 0–5 years. Second, given the young age of children in this sample, it is likely that ACE score might increase as they age. As a result, ACE score was grouped as 0, 1 and 2+, given that children aged 0–5 years had not had as much time to potentially be exposed to adverse experiences. Third, we were unable to determine the duration of household food insecurity. This is an important avenue for future research. Finally, while prior literature focused largely on the impact of household food insecurity on future outcomes, the cross-sectional nature of the data did not permit the research team to observe the long-term impacts of household food insecurity or food security as a possible moderator between ACE and other long-term outcomes such as externalising behaviours, internalising behaviours, physical health problems or health risk behaviours.

Conclusion

ACE were found to be associated with household food insecurity for children aged 0–5 years. Given the critical period of development during the first few years of life, it is crucial to prevent ACE and household food insecurity, as well as provide early intervention in cases of adversity exposure. This can help to mitigate the negative impact of ACE and food insecurity on child development. Consistent with prior literature that has found social support to mitigate the impact of ACE on long-term outcomes(Reference Von Cheong, Sinnott and Dahly56), the findings of this study suggest that social support may also be a protective factor against household food insecurity. Therefore, future research could examine specific early interventions to build social and emotional support networks among families with young children who are at-risk for ACE or household food insecurity. Additionally, future studies could quantitatively examine the association between ACE across the life course to include generational patterns on current household food insecurity. A recent qualitative study found intergenerational disadvantage and adversities were linked to household food insecurity for at least three generations(Reference Chilton, Knowles and Bloom57). Such an investigation could shed light on needed long-term support efforts from public assistance programmes such as SNAP to address generational family adversity and food insecurity. Furthermore, future research could longitudinally examine the impact of food or cash assistance programmes on household food insecurity over time. This could allow researchers to better understand the long-term implications and benefits of food and cash assistance among low-income families.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: This paper is based on public data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) conducted by the US Census Bureau on behalf of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration and Maternal and Child Health Bureau. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors. Dr. Baiden had full access to all of the data and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Financial support: None. Conflict of interest: None. Authorship: P.B conceived of the initial idea, designed the study, analysed, interpreted the findings and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; C.L. contributed to the interpretation of the data and wrote part of the discussion; S.T. contributed to writing the literature review and wrote part of the discussion; G.A. contributed to writing the literature review and wrote part of the discussion and B.H. contributed to writing part of the discussion. All authors contributed significantly to the interpretation of the findings, the writing of the manuscript and approval of the final version. Ethics of human subject participation: Data for this study have been de-identified and are publicly available; hence, no institutional review board approval was required.

References

Coleman-Jensen, A, Matthew, R, Christian, G et al. (2019) Household food security in the United States in 2013. USDA-ERS Econ Res Rep 173, 139.Google Scholar
Drennen, CR, Coleman, SM, de Cuba, SE et al. (2019) Food insecurity, health, and development in children under age four years. Pediatrics 144, e20190824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, M (2014) What have we learned from two decades of research on household food security? Public Health Nutr 17, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundersen, C & Ziliak, JP (2015) Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Aff (Millwood) 34, 18301839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shankar, P, Chung, R & Frank, DA (2017) Association of food insecurity with children’s behavioral, emotional, and academic outcomes: a systematic review. J Dev Behav Pediatr 38, 135150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmeer, KK & Piperata, BA (2017) Household food insecurity and child health. Matern Child Nutr 13, e12301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubois, J, Dehaene-Lambertz, G, Kulikova, S et al. (2014) The early development of brain white matter: a review of imaging studies in fetuses, newborns and infants. Neuroscience 276, 4871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y, Shi, J, Wei, H et al. (2019) Neonate and infant brain development from birth to 2 years assessed using MRI-based quantitative susceptibility mapping. NeuroImage 185, 349360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, T, Mahfuz, M, Ireen, S et al. (2012) Nutrition of children and women in Bangladesh: trends and directions for the future. J Health Popul Nutr 30, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, KP, Vosti, SA, Ayifah, E et al. (2018) Willingness to pay for small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements for women and children: evidence from Ghana and Malawi. Matern Child Nutr 14, e12518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrikova, I (2019) Food-security governance in India and Ethiopia: a comparative analysis. Third World Q 40, 743762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukuku, O, Mutombo, AM, Kamona, LK et al. (2019) Predictive model for the risk of severe acute malnutrition in children. J Nutr Metab 4740825. doi: 10.1155/2019/4740825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikafunda, JK, Agaba, E & Bambona, A (2014) Malnutrition amidst plenty: an assessment of factors responsible for persistent high levels of childhood stunting in food secure Western Uganda. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 14, 20882113.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Pérez, HJ, Hernán, MA, Ríos-González, A et al. (2007) Malnutrition among children younger than 5 years-old in conflict zones of Chiapas, Mexico. Am J Public Health 97, 229232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iriart, C, Boursaw, B, Rodrigues, GP et al. (2013) Obesity and malnutrition among Hispanic children in the United States: double burden on health inequities. Rev Panam Salud Pública 34, 235243.Google ScholarPubMed
Jackson, DB, Chilton, M, Johnson, KR et al. (2019) Adverse childhood experiences and household food insecurity: findings from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health. Am J Prev Med 57, 667674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, EJ, Hoffmann, LM, Rosenberg, KD et al. (2015) Increased food insecurity among mothers of 2 year olds with special health care needs. Matern Child Health J 19, 22062214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, X & King, C (2018) Food insecurity transitions and housing hardships: are immigrant families more vulnerable? J Urban Aff 40, 11461160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AD & Markowitz, AJ (2018) Associations between household food insecurity in early childhood and children’s kindergarten skills. Child Dev 89, e1e17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D & Bodor, JN (2006) Household food insecurity and overweight status in young school children: results from the early childhood longitudinal study. Pediatrics 117, 464473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, C (2017) Informal assistance to urban families and the risk of household food insecurity. Soc Sci Med 189, 105113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mabli, J & Worthington, J (2014) Supplemental nutrition assistance program participation and child food security. Pediatrics 133, 610619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nord, M (2012) How much does the supplemental nutrition assistance program alleviate food insecurity? Evidence from recent programme leavers. Public Health Nutr 15, 811817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Nutrition Service (n.d.) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/361 (accessed April 2020).Google Scholar
Fernald, LC & Gosliner, W (2019) Alternatives to SNAP: global approaches to addressing childhood poverty and food insecurity. Am J Public Health 109, 16681677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seligman, HK & Berkowitz, SA (2019) Aligning programs and policies to support food security and public health goals in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health 40, 319337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dube, SR, Felitti, VJ, Dong, M et al. (2003) Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics 111, 564572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, J, Knowles, M, Patel, F et al. (2016) Childhood adversity and adult reports of food insecurity among households with children. Am J Prev Med 50, 561572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K, Bellis, MA, Hardcastle, KA et al. (2017) The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 2, e356e366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, DP, Whitfield, CL, Felitti, VJ et al. (2004) Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood. J Affect Disord 82, 217225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coohey, C, Dirks-Bihun, A, Renner, LM et al. (2014) Strain, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts among maltreated adolescents in the United States. Child Abuse Negl 38, 11711179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larkin, H, Felitti, VJ & Anda, RF (2014) Social work and adverse childhood experiences research: implications for practice and health policy. Soc Work Public Health 29, 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baiden, P, Stewart, SL & Fallon, B (2017) The role of adverse childhood experiences as determinants of non-suicidal self-injury among children and adolescents referred to community and inpatient mental health settings. Child Abuse Negl 69, 163176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traube, DE, James, S, Zhang, J et al. (2012) A national study of risk and protective factors for substance use among youth in the child welfare system. Addict Behav 37, 641650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anda, RF, Felitti, VJ, Bremner, JD et al. (2006) The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 256, 174186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feletti, VJ, Anda, RF, Nordenberg, D et al. (1998) Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. Am J Prev Med 14, 245258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, JG, Haralson, KJ, Butler, EM et al. (2011) Childhood maltreatment, psychological dysregulation, and risky sexual behaviors in female adolescents. J Pediatr Psychol 36, 743752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chilton, M, Knowles, M, Rabinowich, J et al. (2015) The relationship between childhood adversity and food insecurity:‘It’s like a bird nesting in your head.’ Public Health Nutr 18, 26432653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBrenz, CA, Dell, PJ, Fong, R et al. (2019) Happily ever after? Life satisfaction after childhood exposure to violence. J Interpers Violence (epub ahead of print, 7 January 2019). doi: 10.1177/0886260518820706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, DC & Jacknowitz, A (2009) Transient, but not persistent, adult food insecurity influences toddler development. J Nutr 139, 15171524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaslow, M, Bronte-Tinkew, J, Capps, R et al. (2009) Food security during infancy: implications for attachment and mental proficiency in toddlerhood. Matern Child Health J 13, 6680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baiden, P, Boateng, GO, Dako-Gyeke, M et al. (2020) Examining the effects of household food insecurity on school absenteeism among Junior High School students: findings from the 2012 Ghana Global School-based Student Health Survey. Afr Geogr Rev 39, 107119.Google Scholar
Insana, SP, Banihashemi, L, Herringa, RJ et al. (2016) Childhood maltreatment is associated with altered frontolimbic neurobiological activity during wakefulness in adulthood. Dev Psychopathol 28, 551564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, BD (2009) Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. J Loss Trauma 14, 240255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusick, SE & Georgieff, MK (2016) The role of nutrition in brain development: the golden opportunity of the “first 1000 days.” J Pediatr 175, 1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, LL (2011) Does food insecurity at home affect non-cognitive performance at school? A longitudinal analysis of elementary student classroom behavior. Econ Educ Rev 30, 157176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau (2018) 2017 National Survey of Children’s Health: Methodology Report. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/nsch/tech-documentation/methodology/2017-NSCH-Methodology-Report.pdf (accessed December 2019).Google Scholar
Bocquier, A, Vieux, F, Lioret, S et al. (2015) Socio-economic characteristics, living conditions and diet quality are associated with food insecurity in France. Public Health Nutr 18, 29522961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, SE, Song, YJ, Kim, Y et al. (2016) Household food insufficiency is associated with dietary intake in Korean adults. Public Health Nutr 19, 11121121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, CW & Villamor, E (2011) Is participation in food and income assistance programmes associated with obesity in California adults? Results from a state-wide survey. Public Health Nutr 14, 645652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, CW, Williams, DR & Villamor, E (2012) Very low food security predicts obesity predominantly in California Hispanic men and women. Public Health Nutr 15, 22282236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alaimo, K, Olson, CM, Frongillo, EA Jr et al. (2001) Food insufficiency, family income, and health in US preschool and school-aged children. Am J Public Health 91, 781.Google ScholarPubMed
Crouch, E, Radcliff, E, Hung, P et al. (2019) Challenges to school success and the role of adverse childhood experiences. Acad Pediatr 19, 899907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaBrenz, CA, Panisch, LS, Lawson, J et al. (2020) Adverse childhood experiences and outcomes among at-risk Spanish-speaking Latino families. J Child Fam Stud 29, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, DB, Lynch, KR, Helton, JJ et al. (2018) Food insecurity and violence in the home: investigating exposure to violence and victimization among preschool-aged children. Health Educ Behav 45, 756763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Cheong, E, Sinnott, C, Dahly, D et al. (2017) Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and later-life depression: perceived social support as a potential protective factor. BMJ Open 7, e013228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, M, Knowles, M & Bloom, SL (2017) The intergenerational circumstances of household food insecurity and adversity. J Hunger Environ Nutr 12, 269297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Distribution of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) (n 17 543)

Figure 1

Table 2 Sample characteristics (n 17 543)

Figure 2

Table 3 Bivariate association between food insecurity and categorical variables (n 17 543)

Figure 3

Table 4 Multinomial logistic regression results predicting food insecurity among children under 5 (n 17 543)