We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To compare the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals.
Design
A cross-sectional survey.
Setting
Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada.
Subjects
Fifty individuals who were ≥18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless.
Results
The modified US FSSM assigned 20 % of participants to a lower ordinal food security category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8 % to a higher food security category. The HFIAS assigned 30 % of participants to a lower food security category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10–16 % of participants to a higher food security category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62 %) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless.
Conclusions
A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food security in the homeless population.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.