Struggling with the basics: food and housing insecurity among college students across twenty-two colleges and universities.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the number and type of students failing to secure basic needs. PARTICIPANTS: Students attending 22 postsecondary schools in the United States in Fall 2019. METHODS: The Adult Food Security Module and part of the #RealCollege Survey were used to measure food and housing insecurity, respectively. Logistic and linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between selected factors and basic needs insecurities. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22,153) were classified as 44.1% and 52.3% food insecure and housing insecure, respectively. Homeless students or those who experienced childhood food insecurity were at the greatest odds of college food insecurity. Year in school was the largest contributor to being housing insecure, with PhD or EdD students being 1,157% more likely to experience housing insecurity compared to freshmen. CONCLUSIONS: High prevalence of basic needs insecurities remain. Current campus initiatives may be insufficient, calling for a more holistic approach at the campus, state, and national levels.

Higher Fruit and Vegetable Intake Is Associated with Participation in the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) Program.

Incentivizing fruit and vegetable (F&V) purchases may help address barriers to healthy eating among populations with low income. In a repeated measures natural experiment study, we examined whether participation in the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program increased F&V consumption among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. Two hundred and twelve participants recruited at baseline through telephone calls were informed about the availability of DUFB at their local farmers' market (FM). F&V consumption frequency and DUFB use were obtained at baseline, mid FM, and end of FM season approximately 5 months later. Participants (N = 212) were primarily white (76.4%) women (77.3%) with an average age of 43.5 years. Only 34 participants opted to use the DUFB program. A linear mixed model showed a significant main effect of DUFB use (p = 0.001) and of time (p = 0.002), with a decrease in F&V intake over time. Compared to non-users, DUFB users had a significantly higher F&V consumption at baseline and midpoint (p = 0.02 and p = 0.02, respectively). F&V consumption was associated with participation in the DUFB program and higher F&V consumption frequency was observed prior to program use among program participants. Future interventions that specifically target SNAP recipients with low F&V intake to use the DUFB program are needed.

Assessment of clinical practice procedures among Registered Dietitian Nutritionists for identifying feeding dysfunction in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Feeding dysfunction is common in children. Efficient processes to identify and treat feeding dysfunction are not commonly known or used among healthcare practitioners. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a survey tool to assess current practice procedures used by Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDN) in identifying, diagnosing, and treating feeding dysfunction in children 0-18 years of age. METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to gather information on RDN practice procedures, prevalence of pediatric feeding dysfunction, identification of pediatric feeding dysfunction, and method of treatment used to address pediatric feeding dysfunction. Emails were sent to 4449 RDNs in United States. All participants were classified by the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR) as clinical dietitians. Distribution and frequency of survey responses were assessed, and in the case of qualitative questions, were categorized according to themes identified. RESULTS: Responses of RDNs from 41 states completed 341 total surveys, 179 surveys were included in data analysis. Eighty percent of participants do not use a specific screening tool to identify feeding dysfunction. Results concerning feeding therapy strategies and terms used by RDNs to describe feeding dysfunction were highly varied or lacking. Increased inclusion of RDNs on interdisciplinary teams was indicated by 80% of participants. The majority of participants indicated they refer patients with feeding dysfunction to other practitioners instead of providing feeding therapy themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized screening, diagnostic, and treatment protocols regarding feeding dysfunction are needed to provide consistent and comprehensive care for the pediatric population. Use of these protocols among RDNs would enable them to improve feeding abilities in more patients earlier in individual child development.

The Provision of Assistance Does Not Substantially Impact the Accuracy of 24-Hour Dietary Recalls Completed Using the Automated Self-Administered 24-H Dietary Assessment Tool among Women with Low Incomes.

Background: Evidence is lacking informing the use of the Automated Self-Administered 24-h Dietary Assessment Tool (ASA24) with populations characterized by low income. Objective: This study was conducted among women with low incomes to evaluate the accuracy of ASA24 recalls completed independently and with assistance. Methods: Three hundred and two women, aged ≥18 y and with incomes below the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program thresholds, served themselves from a buffet; amounts taken as well as plate waste were unobtrusively weighed to enable calculation of true intake for 3 meals. The following day, women completed ASA24-2016 independently (n = 148) or with assistance from a trained paraprofessional in a small group (n = 154). Regression modeling examined differences by condition in agreement between true and reported foods; energy, nutrient, and food group intakes; and portion sizes. Results: Participants who completed ASA24 independently and those who received assistance reported matches for 71.9% and 73.5% (P = 0.56) of items truly consumed, respectively. Exclusions (consumed but not reported) were highest for lunch (at which participants consumed approximately 2 times the number of distinct foods and beverages compared with breakfast and dinner). Commonly excluded foods were additions to main dishes (e.g., tomatoes in salad). On average, excluded foods contributed 43.6 g (46.2 kcal) and 40.1 g (43.2 kcal) among those in the independent and assisted conditions, respectively. Gaps between true and reported intake were different between conditions for folate and iron. Within conditions, significant gaps were observed for protein, vitamin D, and meat (both conditions); vitamin A, iron, and magnesium (independent); and folate, calcium, and vegetables (assisted). For foods and beverages for which matches were reported, no difference in the gap between true and reported portion sizes was observed by condition (P = 0.22). Conclusions: ASA24 performed relatively well among women with low incomes; however, accuracy was somewhat lower than previously observed among adults with a range of incomes. The provision of assistance did not significantly impact accuracy.