Table 4.
ORs for variables of interest associated with household food insecurity for individuals with diabetes
| n | Unadjusted ORs (95% CI) | Adjusted ORs (95% CI)* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unmet health care needs† | 4,953 | 3.12 (2.24–4.35)‡ | 2.71 (1.74–4.23)‡ |
| Overnight hospital patient† | 4,957 | 2.42 (1.76–3.33)‡ | 2.08 (1.43–3.04)‡ |
| Has a mood disorder† | 4,954 | 3.33 (2.53–4.39)‡ | 2.18 (1.54–3.08)‡ |
| Has had a stroke† | 4,957 | 2.45 (1.49–4.02)‡ | 2.39 (1.32–4.32)‡ |
| Physical activity index† | 4,957 | ||
| Inactive vs. moderately active or active | 1.48 (1.13–1.94)‡ | 1.54 (1.10–2.17)‡ | |
| Fruit and vegetable intake† | 3,160 | ||
| ≥5 vs. <5 | 0.46 (0.32–0.65)‡ | 0.52 (0.33–0.81)‡ | |
| Satisfaction with life§ | 4,940 | ||
| Positive vs. neutral | 0.25 (0.17–0.38)‡ | 0.28 (0.18–0.43)‡ | |
| Negative vs. neutral | 1.75 (1.08–2.83)‡ | 1.47 (0.86–2.50) | |
| Self-rated health§ | 4,950 | ||
| Good vs. fair to poor | 0.39 (0.29–0.54)‡ | 0.53 (0.36–0.76)‡ | |
| Very good to excellent vs. fair to poor | 0.24 (0.14–0.40)‡ | 0.37 (0.21–0.66)‡ | |
| Self-rated mental health§ | 4,950 | ||
| Good vs. poor to fair | 0.32 (0.22–0.47)‡ | 0.46 (0.28–0.73)‡ | |
| Very good vs. poor to fair | 0.19 (0.13–0.30)‡ | 0.32 (0.19–0.55)‡ | |
| Excellent vs. poor to fair | 0.10 (0.06–0.15)‡ | 0.17 (0.10–0.29)‡ | |
| Self-perceived stress§ | 4,924 | ||
| A bit stressful vs. not at all or not very stressful | 1.22 (0.85–1.77) | 1.01 (0.66–1.55) | |
| Quite a bit or extremely stressful vs. not at all or not very stressful | 3.18 (2.19–4.62)‡ | 2.04 (1.30–3.20)‡ | |
| Smoking status§ | 4,957 | ||
| Current vs. never | 2.06 (1.42–3.00)‡ | 1.71 (1.09–2.69)‡ | |
| Former vs. never | 0.79 (0.55–1.15) | 1.06 (0.69–1.65) |
Data are unadjusted ORs (95% CI). These analyses are based on data from individuals with diabetes, aged ≥12 years, living in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, provinces that incorporated the food security module in their survey.
*Covariates were age, sex, duration of diabetes, insulin status, whether or not an individual had a regular medical doctor, whether or not an individual had the effects of a stroke, adjusted income ratio, household education level, First Nations status, smoking status, and physical activity level.
†Binary logistic regression, with survey expansion weights, modeled the effect of being food insecure compared with being food secure. n is the sample size for this analysis.
‡OR is statistically significant; 95% CI does not include 1.
§Ordinal logistic regression, with survey expansion weights, modeled the effect of being food insecure compared with being food secure.