Assessing the Relationship Between Emergency Food Assistance and Social Vulnerability During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Food insecurity is a major public health challenge that is associated with negative health outcomes in wealthy countries. In US urban areas, food banks and pantries played an expanded role in providing emergency food assistance and addressing food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study seeks to determine if socially vulnerable neighborhoods are more likely to receive emergency food assistance during this pandemic, after controlling for distance to emergency food distribution sites and spatial clustering. The study area is El Paso County, Texas-an urban area on the US-Mexico border. Dependent variables represent both coverage and intensity of emergency food transfers (EFTs) from local food banks and pantries during November 2020, at the census tract level. Independent variables are derived from the widely used Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Our statistical analyses are based on multivariable generalized estimating equations that account for spatial clustering and proximity to emergency food distribution sites. Results indicate that both coverage and intensity of EFTs are significantly greater in neighborhoods with higher social vulnerability and proximity to emergency food distribution sites, but lower in neighborhoods that are more vulnerable in terms of housing and transportation. Our findings highlight the significance of neighborhood-level social factors in influencing access to the emergency food network during a public health crisis and have important implications for government agencies and nonprofit organizations associated with public health and emergency preparedness in US urban areas.

Food and housing security at a US Hispanic-Serving Institution: An examination before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

University students occupy a socially marginal position and therefore are often underserved by academic and service institutions. This article analyzes food and housing security among students at The University of Texas at El Paso, a Hispanic-Serving Institution located in the U.S.-Mexico Border region. Findings of a sample of n = 7,633 university students are presented in the first cross-sectional, two-year food and housing security study on campus administered via platform Campus Labs Baseline. The first sample in 2019 consisted of n = 2,615 students representing 10.4% of student enrollment (25,177 total 2019 enrollment), and the second sample in 2020 was n = 5,018 representing 20.2% of student enrollment (24,879 total 2020 enrollment). To measure food security, the six-item short form of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module was used. To document housing security, we created questions informed by student input. In this study, survey results are reported, and tests are conducted to assess the relationships between various student characteristics and food and housing security. Student characteristics significantly impacting food and housing security are probed further using data visualizations and subpopulation analysis with a focus on analyzing factors impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Results indicate that employment status, consistent employment status, hours per week, academic level, number of dependents, and gender are all factors associated with food security during the pandemic but not prior to the pandemic. Other factors, including, college affiliation, ethnicity/race, having any dependents and being head of household, living alone, mode of campus transportation and mode of the transportation, household income, and age, all were associated with food security in both academic years. Using these results, a critical analysis of past interventions addressing food and housing security is presented with a focus on changes made during the pandemic. Recommendations are made for further data-driven interventions and future steps.

Dialysis Patient Perspectives on CKD Advocacy: A Semistructured Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Health advocacy groups provide education, raise public awareness, and engage in legislative, scientific, and regulatory processes to advance funding and treatments for many diseases. Despite a high burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States, public awareness and research funding lag behind those for other disease states. We undertook this study of patients receiving maintenance dialysis to describe knowledge and beliefs about CKD advocacy, understand perceptions regarding advocacy participation, and elicit ideas for generating more advocacy in the dialysis community. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 48 patients (89% response rate) receiving in-center hemodialysis (n=39), home hemodialysis (n=4), and peritoneal dialysis (n=5) from 14 US states. METHODOLOGY: Semistructured interviews. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: 5 themes describing patient perspectives on CKD advocacy were identified: (1) advocacy awareness (advocacy vs engagement knowledge, concrete knowledge, CKD publicity), (2) willingness to participate (personal qualities, internal efficacy, external efficacy), (3) motivations (altruism, providing a purpose, advancement of personal health, self-education), (4) resource availability (time, financial and transportation, health status), and (5) mobilization experience (key figure, mobilization network). Participants displayed operational understanding of advocacy but generally lacked knowledge about specific opportunities for participation. Personal qualities and external efficacy were perceived as important for advocacy participation, as were motivating factors such as altruism and self-education. Resources factored heavily into perceived participation ability. Most participants identified a key figure who invited them to participate in advocacy. In-person patient-delivered communication about advocacy opportunities was identified as critical to enhancing CKD advocacy among patients living on dialysis therapy. LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias and inclusion of only English-speaking participants may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results suggest that there may be untapped advocacy potential within the dialysis community and highlight the need for local in-person patient-led initiatives to increase patient involvement in CKD advocacy.