Self-Reported Food Security in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Association with Hemoglobin A1c and Mental Health Symptoms Independent of Household Food Security.

BACKGROUND: Typically, child exposure to food insecurity is assessed by caregiver reports of household food security. Child report has the potential for greater accuracy because it pertains only to the child whose experiences may differ from caregiver reports. OBJECTIVE: We assessed if adolescent-reported food insecurity was associated with levels of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), acute diabetes-related complications, depressive symptoms, and disordered eating behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, independently from household food security. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis of the multicenter SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Cohort Study (phase 4, 2016-2019) including 601 adolescents aged 10-17 y with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers, household food security, and adolescent-reported food security were assessed using the 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module and the 6-item Child Food Security Assessment questionnaire. Age-stratified (10-13 and 14-17) regression models were performed to estimate independent associations, adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical factors, and household food security. RESULTS: Food insecurity was reported by 13.1% (n = 79) of adolescents and 15.6% (n = 94) of caregivers. Among adolescent-caregiver dyads, 82.5% (n = 496) of reports were concordant and 17.5% (n = 105) discordant, Cohen's κ= 0.3. Adolescent-reported food insecurity was not independently associated with HbA1c, diabetic ketoacidosis, and severe hypoglycemia, including in age-stratified analyses. Adolescent-reported food insecurity was independently associated with elevated odds of depressive symptoms [odds ratio (OR): 3.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 10.3] and disordered eating behaviors (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4, 4.6) compared with adolescents reporting food security; these associations remained in both age groups for disordered eating behaviors and in the older group for depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes may experience food insecurity differently than caregivers. Adolescent-reported food insecurity was independently associated with depressive symptoms and disordered eating behaviors and thus may be an important attribute to assess in addition to household food security in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Properties of the Household Food Security Survey Module Scale in Young Adults with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) was not tailored to people with chronic diseases or young adults (YAs). OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate whether the 18-item HFSSM meets assumptions underlying the scale among YAs with diabetes. METHODS: Data from 1887 YAs with youth-onset type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes were used from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, 2016-2019, and on 925 who returned for the SEARCH Food Security Cohort Study, 2018-2021, all of whom had completed the HFSSM. Guttman scaling properties (affirmation of preceding less severe items) and Rasch model properties (probability to answer an item based on difficulty level) were assessed. RESULTS: Items 3 (balanced meals) and 6 (eating less than one should) were affirmed more frequently than expected (nonmonotonic response pattern). At 1.2%-3.5%, item nonresponse was rare among type 1 diabetes but higher among type 2 diabetes (range: 3.1%-10.6%). Items 9 (not eating the whole day) and 3 did not meet the Guttman scaling properties. Rasch modeling revealed that item 3 had the smallest difficulty parameter. INFIT indices suggested that some responses to item 3 did not match the pattern in the rest of the sample. Classifying household food insecurity (HFI) based on items 1 and 2 compared with other 2-item combinations, including item 3, revealed a substantial undercount of HFI ranging from 5% to 8% points. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the HFSSM among YAs with diabetes could potentially result in biased HFI reporting and affect estimates of HFI prevalence in this population.

Erratum. 189-OR: Food Insecurity and Inability to Obtain Recommended Medications, Diabetes Technology, and Multidisciplinary Services in Youth and Young Adults with Diabetes. Diabetes 2024;73 (Suppl. 1):189-OR.

In the abstract cited above, author Nadine El Kalach was inadvertently omitted from the author list. The full, correct author list is as follows: Nadine El Kalach, Emmanuel F. Julceus, Caroline Rudisill, Faisal Malik, Kate Flory, Edward A. Frongillo, Katherine A. Sauder, Jason A. Mendoza, and Angela D. Liese. All authors approve the addition and the order of the revised author list. The authors apologize for the omission. The online version of the abstract (https://doi.org/10.2337/db24-189-OR) has been updated to correct the error.

Reassessing the burden of food insecurity in youth and young adults with youth-onset diabetes: The importance of marginal food security.

INTRODUCTION: Whereas marginal food insecurity has been recognized as important in Canadian food security policy, the category of marginal food security (MFS) is often ignored in US food security research. METHODS: Prevalence of FI was estimated according to the conventional and an alternate classification of MFS with food insecurity among 938 youth and young adults (YYA) with youth-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 156 with youth-onset of type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SEARCH Food Security Cohort Study (2018-2021). Multivariable regression was used to estimate the association of MFS and conventionally defined food insecurity (FI) ascertained with diabetes-related outcomes, including acute diabetes complications, health care utilization, and diabetes self-management among YYA with T1D. RESULTS: MFS affected 10% of participants with T1D diabetes and 20% of participants with T2D. Classifying MFS with FI increased FI prevalence from 18.0% to 27.8% in participants with T1D and 34.6% to 55.1% in participants with T2D. Compared to T1D with high food security, YYA with T1D who were FI had higher odds hypoglycemia (2.1, 95%CI 1.2-3.6) and ketoacidosis (1.6, 95%CI 1.0-2.6), but no association was seen in MFS. The FI group also had higher odds of emergency department use and hospitalization (2.3, 95%CI 1.5-3.4; 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.9) and lower odds of technology use and checking glucose (0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9; 0.3, 95%CI 0.1-0.6). The MFS group exhibited associations of similar directions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers should consider care of patients with T1D and MFS the same way they care for patients with FI.