Abstract
Objectives:
Food insecurity is linked to poor sexual health outcomes, especially among persons engaged in sexual behaviors that are associated with the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We examined this link using nationally representative data.
Methods:
We used data on adolescents and adults aged 15-44 who reported sexual activity in the past year from 6 years (September 2011–September 2017) of cross-sectional, weighted public-use data from the National Survey of Family Growth. We compared data on persons who did and did not report food insecurity, accounting for demographic characteristics, markers of poverty, and past-year STI risk indicators (ie, engaged in 1 of 4 high-risk activities or diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea).
Results:
Respondents who reported at least 1 past-year STI risk indicator were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (females: adjusted risk ratio [ARR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.97; P < .001; males: ARR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85) than respondents who did not report food insecurity. This finding was independent of the association between food insecurity and markers of poverty (≤100% federal poverty level [females: ARR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72; P < .001; males: ARR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.49-2.20; P < .001]; if the respondent or someone in the household had received Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in the past year [females: ARR = 3.37; 95% CI, 2.81-4.02; P < .001; males: ARR = 3.27; 95% CI, 2.76-3.87; P < .001]). Sex with opposite- and same-sex partners in the past year was significantly associated with food insecurity (females: ARR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.85; P = .01; males: ARR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.15-3.42; P = .02).
Conclusions:
Food insecurity should be considered a social determinant of health independent of poverty, and its effect on persons at highest risk for STIs, including HIV, should be considered when planning interventions designed to decrease engagement in higher-risk sexual behaviors.
Keywords: sexually transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, high-risk sexual behavior, food insecurity, social determinants of health
Social determinants of health, such as exposure to violence in the community,1 neighborhood prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs),2,3 economic disadvantage,4,5 and residential segregation by race/ethnicity,6 can increase a person’s risk of acquiring STIs, including HIV. One way social determinants increase STI/HIV risk is by placing increased stress on the interaction between individual behaviors (eg, condom use, sexual partner selection) and the biological and behavioral factors that drive disease transmission (ie, the epidemiological context in which a person lives).7 One such social determinant is food insecurity, defined as “limited or uncertain access to nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain availability to acquire such foods in socially acceptable ways.”8 Although the number of US households reporting food insecurity has declined since 2011 (when it was 14.9%), 11.1% (14.3 million) of households in 2018 still reported being food insecure at some point during the year.9
A literature review of developing and developed countries found an association between food insecurity and high-risk sexual behaviors that led to an increased likelihood of HIV transmission, decreased access to health care services, decreased adherence to antiretroviral therapy, and poor HIV immunological outcomes.10 In North America, research examining the link between food insecurity and HIV has focused on HIV-positive persons.10-21 The prevalence of food insecurity among HIV-positive persons ranged from 40%6 to 71%18,20 across diverse samples (eg, African American persons recently diagnosed with HIV,11 homeless and marginally housed HIV-infected persons living in a major US city12). These studies found that food insecurity was associated with outcomes specific to persons living with HIV, such as higher HIV-1 viral load, lower mean CD4+ count,13 and reduced adherence to antiretroviral therapies,19 as well as to high-risk sexual behaviors or markers of past high-risk sexual behaviors with broad implications for sexual health. These markers of past high-risk sexual behaviors included past history of STIs, concurrent partnerships, nonmonogamous recent partner(s),11 and sex without condoms.12,14
Other research conducted in North America has focused on persons characterized as at high risk for contracting HIV because they or their partners are engaged in high-risk sexual behaviors (eg, young female sex workers,21 persons recently released from prison22). These groups also reported high levels of food insecurity, ranging from 46%23 to 72%,21 with food insecurity linked to high-risk sexual behaviors such as exchanging sex for food or resources to get food,21-23 decreasing ability to negotiate with clients for condom use during transactional sex,21 having sex without condoms,23 and not knowing a partner’s HIV serostatus.17
To date, only 1 study has used nationally representative data to examine the link between food insecurity and STIs, including HIV, and indicators of STI risk. One study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 1999-2012 found that 22% of men aged 20-29 lived in food-insecure households.24 Compared with men who did not live in a food-insecure household, men who lived in a food-insecure household were more likely to have HIV or herpes simplex virus-2 and more likely to report an STI diagnosis in their lifetime. Although much of the extant work has focused on HIV, further exploration of the association between food insecurity and STI risk is warranted, because (1) persons at risk for STIs are also at risk for HIV and (2) several STIs are associated with serious health complications, particularly if left untreated.25,26 We build on research examining the links between food insecurity and STI risk by analyzing results for persons from a nationally representative US survey that includes questions on food insecurity and assessments of sexual behaviors and STI/HIV history.
Methods
Respondents
This analysis used 6 years of public-use data (September 2011–September 2017) collected through the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).27 The NSFG includes a broad range of family life and reproductive and sexual health issues and was designed to be generalizable to the US noninstitutionalized, nonmilitary population of adolescents and adults aged 15-44, with oversamples of adolescents and young adults aged 15-24, non-Hispanic black persons, and Hispanic persons. We included in our analyses only respondents who indicated on the survey that they were sexually active (vaginal, oral, or anal sex with a woman or man) during the past year. The Research Ethics Review Board at the National Center for Health Statistics approved the use of these data.
Overall, 16 191 female and 13 320 male adolescents and adults aged 15-44 participated in NSFG data collection during 2011-2017, few of whom were missing data on food insecurity (n = 181 for female respondents; n = 191 for male respondents). Among participants with information on food insecurity, 13 129 female respondents and 10 438 male respondents had been sexually active in the past year and were included in the analyses. A total of 2160 of 13 129 (16.5%) sexually active female respondents and 1189 of 10 438 (11.4%) sexually active male respondents reported food insecurity in the past year. Fewer than 1% of the sexually active sample (79 female respondents, 84 male respondents) were missing data for food insecurity and thus were excluded from analyses.
Measures
Outcome
Respondents were coded as food insecure if they answered yes to either of the following questions: (1) In the last 12 months, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food? or (2) In the past 12 months, were you or any member of your family ever hungry, but you just couldn’t afford more food?
Covariates
We assessed the following characteristics: age (15-24 y, 25-44 y), race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic other), education (<high school degree, high school degree/general education diploma [GED], >high school degree), marital status (married or cohabiting; widowed, divorced, or separated; never been married), residence in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA; principal city of MSA, other MSA, or non-MSA), federal poverty level (FPL) status (≤100%, >100%), past-year work status (full time, part time, did not work), and number of biological or nonbiological (ie, adopted/stepchild/partner’s child/grandchild/niece/nephew/legal ward/foster) children aged <18 living in the respondent’s household (0, 1, ≥2).
Respondents were asked if they or any member of their family residing in their household had received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits or Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits in the past year. If they reported receipt of either or both, they were coded as having received food assistance in the past year (yes, no). Respondents indicated whether their past-year sex partners were all of the opposite sex, all of the same sex, or of both the same and opposite sex. Respondents indicated condom use at last vaginal sex or last anal sex with a partner of the opposite sex (female respondents) or same or opposite sex (male respondents; yes, no). Respondents indicated if they had been told by a physician or other medical care provider that they had been diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea, respectively, in the past year (yes, no).
Dependent Variable
In separate questions, respondents were asked if any of the following were true in the past year: taken money or drugs for sex from opposite sex (female respondents) or same or opposite sex (male respondents), had sex with a male injection drug user, had sex with an HIV-positive partner (opposite sex for female respondents or same or opposite sex for male respondents), had a partner who was nonmonogamous (opposite sex for females respondents or same or opposite sex for male respondents), received a diagnosis of chlamydia, or received a diagnosis of gonorrhea. Responses were yes or no. We used responses to these questions to create a new composite variable indicating whether the respondent reported any STI risk indicator in the past year.
Data Analysis Plan
We performed all analyses by using NSFG cross-sectional data sets spanning 2011-2017. We used 6-year survey weights provided by NSFG to represent the US household population aged 15-44. In bivariate analyses, we used the Pearson χ2 test to determine the association between food insecurity and demographic covariates, receipt of food assistance, and sexual behavior variables. We included in adjusted analyses only variables with P ≤ .20. In adjusted analyses, we used logistic regression to determine adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to examine the association between indicators of STI risk and food insecurity, accounting for key covariates, with P < .05 considered significant. We conducted additional analyses setting the FPL at >200% compared with ≤200%, >300% compared with ≤300%, and >400% compared with ≤400% to determine whether findings persisted for respondents reporting food insecurity at higher income levels. We conducted analyses by using SAS-callable SUDAAN release 11.0.28
Results
Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics and Food Insecurity
Most food-insecure persons were younger, Hispanic or non-Hispanic black, and had lower levels of educational attainment than food-secure persons (Table 1). In unadjusted analyses, respondents were significantly more likely to report food insecurity than to report food security if they were aged 15-24; non-Hispanic black; had <high school degree or a high school degree/GED; were widowed, divorced, or separated or had never been married; were ≤100% FPL, ≤200% FPL, ≤300% FPL, or ≤400% FPL; worked part time or did not work in the past year; had ≤2 children aged <18 living in the household; or received WIC, SNAP, or WIC and/or SNAP benefits in the past year (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 1.
Food insecurity among sexually active female (n = 13 129) and male (n = 10 438) adolescents and adults aged 15-44, by demographic characteristics, food assistance, and sexual behaviors, National Survey of Family Growth, September 2011–September 2017a
| Characteristic | Food Insecureb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | |||
| No. | % (95% CI) | No. | % (95% CI) | |
| Unweighted sample size | 2160 | 13.4 (12.4-14.4) | 1189 | 86.6 (85.7-87.6) |
| Population total estimatec | 6 791 000 | — | 4 602 000 | — |
| Demographic characteristics | ||||
| Age, y | ||||
| 15-24 | 642 | 15.3 (13.6-17.1) | 442 | 11.8 (10.4-13.5) |
| 25-44 | 1518 | 12.7 (11.7-13.8) | 747 | 8.3 (7.8-9.2) |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||
| Hispanic | 562 | 16.5 (14.9-18.1) | 312 | 10.7 (9.3-12.4) |
| Non-Hispanic white | 892 | 11.3 (10.1-12.7) | 491 | 7.7 (6.7-8.7) |
| Non-Hispanic black | 620 | 19.4 (17.1-21.9) | 342 | 15.0 (12.7-17.8) |
| Non-Hispanic otherd | 86 | 8.6 (6.4-11.5) | 44 | 6.8 (4.4-10.5) |
| Education | ||||
| <High school degree | 604 | 26.3 (23.7-29.1) | 406 | 18.8 (16.4-21.4) |
| High school degree or GED | 767 | 19.3 (17.2-21.5) | 472 | 12.5 (11.0-14.1) |
| >High school degree | 789 | 8.1 (7.2-9.1) | 311 | 4.7 (4.0-5.7) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married or cohabiting | 904 | 10.5 (9.5-11.6) | 425 | 7.7 (6.7-8.8) |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 329 | 26.3 (22.5-30.4) | 97 | 11.7 (8.9-15.3) |
| Never been married | 927 | 15.9 (14.5-17.5) | 667 | 11.4 (10.3-12.7) |
| Residence in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) | ||||
| Principal city of MSA | 955 | 15.1 (13.5-16.9) | 552 | 10.9 (9.5-12.5) |
| Other MSA or non-MSA | 1205 | 12.5 (11.4-13.7) | 637 | 8.3 (7.4-9.3) |
| Federal poverty level | ||||
| ≤100% | 1215 | 26.5 (24.5-28.7) | 524 | 23.2 (20.8-25.7) |
| >100% | 945 | 8.8 (7.9-9.8) | 665 | 6.3 (5.6-7.1) |
| ≤200% | 1793 | 23.0 (21.5-24.6) | 888 | 18.1 (16.5-19.8) |
| >200% | 367 | 4.98 (4.3-5.8) | 301 | 3.9 (3.3-4.6) |
| ≤300% | 2039 | 19.7 (18.5-21.0) | 1057 | 15.1 (13.9-16.3) |
| >300% | 121 | 2.5 (1.9-3.2) | 132 | 2.4 (1.8-3.1) |
| ≤400% | 2101 | 17.3 (16.2-18.4) | 1126 | 12.7 (11.7-13.8) |
| >400% | 59 | 1.9 (1.3-2.8) | 63 | 1.8 (1.3-2.6) |
| Past-year work status | n = 2159 | |||
| Full time | 842 | 10.0 (8.9-11.2) | 570 | 6.6 (5.9-7.5) |
| Part time | 673 | 15.9 (14.2-17.6) | 374 | 13.8 (12.0-15.8) |
| Did not work | 644 | 19.3 (17.2-21.6) | 245 | 22.4 (18.7-26.5) |
| No. of children aged <18 y living in householde | ||||
| 0 | 739 | 11.2 (10.0-12.5) | 816 | 9.6 (8.6-10.6) |
| 1 | 501 | 14.8 (13.1-16.4) | 123 | 7.9 (5.9-10.5) |
| ≥2 | 920 | 14.9 (13.6-16.4) | 250 | 9.3 (8.0-10.9) |
| Received food assistance in past yearf | ||||
| WIC | n = 2152 | |||
| Yes | 669 | 25.3 (22.6-28.3) | 263 | 23.4 (19.9-27.3) |
| No | 1483 | 11.3 (10.4-12.4) | 908 | 7.6 (6.9-8.4) |
| SNAP | n = 2147 | |||
| Yes | 1331 | 33.5 (31.2-35.8) | 543 | 28.0 (24.9-31.3) |
| No | 816 | 7.1 (3.4-7.9) | 626 | 6.0 (5.3-6.7) |
| WIC and/or SNAP | n = 2154 | |||
| Yes | 1480 | 29.7 (27.6-31.9) | 632 | 25.1 (22.6-27.7) |
| No | 674 | 6.5 (5.8-7.3) | 544 | 5.3 (4.7-6.0) |
| Sexual behaviors | ||||
| Sex of respondent’s sexual partner(s), past year | ||||
| Opposite- and same-sex partners | 189 | 25.8 (21.1-31.2) | 40 | 23.7 (15.9-33.9) |
| Same-sex partner(s) only | 64 | 16.5 (11.3-23.4) | 33 | 8.7 (5.6-13.2) |
| Opposite-sex partner(s) only | 1907 | 12.8 (11.9-13.7) | 1116 | 9.1 (8.3-9.9) |
| Chlamydia diagnosis, past year | 103 | 26.5 (20.2-34.1) | 30 | 19.4 (11.9-30.0) |
| Gonorrhea diagnosis, past year | 59 | 35.5 (24.9-47.7) | 28 | 36.6 (23.8-51.5) |
| Condom use at last vaginal sex (with male sex partner) | 618 | 14.2 (12.5-16.1) | 469 | 9.6 (8.5-10.8) |
| Condom use at last anal sex (with male sex partner) | 220 | 16.2 (13.4-19.3) | 241 | 11.0 (9.2-13.3) |
| Took money or drugs for sex, past year | 51 | 36.7 (25.1-50.1) | 66 | 28.2 (21.1-36.5) |
| Had sex with male injection drug user, past year | 78 | 39.8 (29.9-50.1) | 14 | 70.5 (44.1-87.8) |
| Had sex with an HIV-positive male partner, past year | 12 | 38.3 (19.9-60.8) | 24 | 36.8 (23.2-53.0) |
| Had nonmonogamous partner(s), past year | 435 | 24.0 (20.7-27.5) | 283 | 14.6 (12.3-17.3) |
| ≥1 Sexually transmitted infection risk indicator was reportedg | 551 | 24.1 (21.1-27.4) | 321 | 15.1 (12.8-17.7) |
Abbreviations: GED, general educational diploma; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
a National Center for Health Statistics.27
b Food security was determined by a “yes” response to 2 questions: (1) In the past year, were you or any member of your family ever hungry but just couldn’t afford more food? and (2) In the last year, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food?
c Number of biological or nonbiological (ie, adopted/stepchild/partner’s child/grandchild/niece/nephew/legal ward/foster) children aged <18 living in the respondent’s household.
d The 6-year (WGT2011_2017) case weights represent the population totals for female and male respondents aged 15-44 at the approximate midpoint of data collection (July 2014), adjusted to the US Census Bureau population projections.
e Includes persons who did not report being Hispanic, black, or white.
f Whether the respondent or any members of their family living in their household received WIC or SNAP in the past year.
g Determined by a “yes” response to any of the following: (1) took money or drugs for sex, past year; (2) had sex with male injection drug user, past year; (3) chlamydia diagnosis, past year; (4) gonorrhea diagnosis, past year; (5) sex with an HIV-positive partner (for female respondents, only asked about male partners; for male respondents, asked about male and/or female partners), past year; and (6) sex with a nonmonogamous partner, past year.
Table 2.
Food insecurity among sexually active female adolescents and adults aged 15-44 (n = 13 129), by demographic characteristics, food assistance, and sexual behaviors, National Survey of Family Growth, September 2011–September 2017a
| Characteristic | Food Securityb | P Valuec | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Insecure | Food Secure | ||||
| No. | % (95% CI) | No. | % (95% CI) | ||
| Unweighted sample size | 2160 | 10 969 | |||
| Population total estimated | 6 791 000 | 44 026 000 | |||
| Demographic characteristics | |||||
| Age, y | .01 | ||||
| 15-24 | 642 | 29.9 (27.2-32.8) | 3067 | 25.6 (24.3-27.1) | |
| 25-55 | 1518 | 70.1 (67.2-72.8) | 7902 | 74.4 (73.0-75.8) | |
| Race/ethnicity | <.001 | ||||
| Hispanic | 562 | 24.7 (21.1-28.7) | 2558 | 19.3 (17.3-21.6) | |
| Non-Hispanic white | 892 | 49.5 (45.3-53.8) | 5377 | 59.8 (57.2-62.4) | |
| Non-Hispanic black | 620 | 21.5 (18.2-25.2) | 2346 | 13.8 (12.2-15.5) | |
| Non-Hispanic othere | 86 | 4.3 (2.9-6.3) | 688 | 7.0 (5.7-8.6) | |
| Education | <.001 | ||||
| <High school degree | 604 | 26.9 (24.2-29.8) | 1620 | 11.6 (10.5-12.8) | |
| High school degree or GED | 767 | 35.7 (32.6-38.9) | 2786 | 23.0 (21.6-24.6) | |
| >High school degree | 789 | 37.4 (34.3-40.7) | 6563 | 65.4 (63.4-67.3) | |
| Marital status | <.001 | ||||
| Married or cohabiting | 904 | 48.4 (45.1-51.7) | 5990 | 63.7 (62.2-62.3) | |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 329 | 15.1 (12.8-17.7) | 900 | 6.6 (5.9-7.2) | |
| Never been married | 927 | 36.5 (33.5-39.5) | 4079 | 29.7 (28.2-31.3) | |
| Residence in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) | .01 | ||||
| Principal city of MSA | 955 | 38.3 (33.4-43.6) | 4296 | 33.2 (30.1-36.4) | |
| Other MSA or non-MSA | 1205 | 61.7 (56.4-66.7) | 6673 | 66.8 (63.6-69.9) | |
| Federal poverty level | <.001 | ||||
| ≤100% | 1215 | 51.1 (47.9-54.4) | 3016 | 21.9 (20.4-23.4) | |
| >100% | 945 | 48.9 (45.6-52.2) | 7953 | 78.2 (76.6-79.7) | |
| ≤200% | 1793 | 80.1 (77.3-82.6) | 5363 | 41.4 (39.4-43.3) | |
| >200% | 367 | 19.9 (17.4-22.7) | 5606 | 58.6 (56.7-60.6) | |
| ≤300% | 2039 | 93.2 (91.3-94.7) | 7170 | 58.7 (56.5-60.8) | |
| >300% | 121 | 6.8 (5.3-8.7) | 3799 | 41.3 (39.2-43.5) | |
| ≤400% | 2101 | 96.4 (94.8-97.5) | 8394 | 71.2 (69.2-73.2) | |
| >400% | 59 | 3.6 (2.5-5.2) | 2575 | 28.8 (26.8-30.9) | |
| Past-year work status | (n = 2159) | (n = 10 968) | <.001 | ||
| Full time | 842 | 40.2 (37.1-43.3) | 5726 | 55.8 (54.2-57.4) | |
| Part time | 673 | 33.6 (30.7-36.7) | 2989 | 27.4 (26.2-28.5) | |
| Did not work | 644 | 26.2 (23.3-29.3) | 2253 | 16.9 (15.6-18.2) | |
| No. of children aged <18 y living in householdf | <.001 | ||||
| 0 | 739 | 34.7 (32.0-37.6) | 4689 | 42.4 (40.6-44.1) | |
| 1 | 501 | 23.5 (21.3-26.0) | 2425 | 21.0 (19.8-22.2) | |
| ≥2 | 920 | 41.7 (38.8-44.8) | 3855 | 36.7 (35.1-38.2) | |
| Received food assistance in past yearg | |||||
| WIC | (n = 2152) | (n = 10 920) | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 669 | 27.4 (24.7-30.3) | 1827 | 12.5 (11.4-13.6) | |
| No | 1483 | 72.6 (69.7-75.3) | 9093 | 87.5 (86.4-88.6) | |
| SNAP | (n = 2147) | (n = 10 880) | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 1331 | 59.8 (56.4-63.1) | 2743 | 18.4 (17.0-19.8) | |
| No | 816 | 40.2 (36.9-43.6) | 8137 | 81.6 (80.2-83.0) | |
| WIC and/or SNAP | (n = 2154) | (n = 10 931) | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 1480 | 65.8 (62.5-69.1) | 3463 | 34.0 (22.5-25.7) | |
| No | 647 | 34.2 (31.0-37.6) | 7468 | 76.0 (74.3-77.5) | |
| Sexual behaviors | |||||
| Sex of respondent’s sexual partner(s), past year | <.001 | ||||
| Opposite- and same-sex partners | 189 | 7.8 (6.3-9.5) | 471 | 3.4 (3.0-4.0) | |
| Same-sex partner(s) only | 64 | 3.0 (2.1-4.3) | 277 | 2.4 (1.9-2.9) | |
| Opposite-sex partner(s) only | 1907 | 89.2 (87.0-91.1) | 10 221 | 94.2 (93.4-94.9) | |
| Chlamydia diagnosis, past year | 103 | 3.5 (2.6-4.7) | 220 | 1.5 (1.2-1.9) | <.001 |
| Gonorrhea diagnosis, past year | 59 | 1.9 (1.3-2.9) | 94 | 0.5 (0.4-0.7) | <.001 |
| Condom use at last vaginal sex (with male sex partner) | 618 | 27.5 (24.5-30.6) | 3054 | 25.4 (24.0-26.8) | .23 |
| Condom use at last anal sex (with male sex partner) | 220 | 19.7 (16.5-23.5) | 815 | 20.5 (18.6-22.4) | .72 |
| Took money or drugs for sex, past year | 51 | 1.9 (1.3-2.7) | 64 | 0.5 (0.3-0.7) | <.001 |
| Had sex with male injection drug user, past year | 78 | 3.3 (2.5-4.4) | 95 | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | <.001 |
| Had sex with an HIV-positive male partner, past year | 12 | 0.5 (0.3-1.0) | 18 | 0.1 (0.1-0.2) | .04 |
| Had nonmonogamous partner(s), past year | 435 | 19.5 (17.1-22.2) | 1176 | 9.5 (8.7-10.3) | <.001 |
| ≥1 Sexually transmitted infection risk indicator was reportedh | 551 | 22.8 (20.2-25.6) | 1414 | 11.1 (10.2-12.0) | <.001 |
Abbreviations: GED, general educational diploma; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
a National Survey of Family Growth.27
b Food security was determined by a “yes” response to 2 questions: (1) In the past year, were you or any member of your family ever hungry but just couldn’t afford more food? and (2) In the last year, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food?
c P values were derived from Pearson χ2 analyses of food insecurity by each variable, with P < .05 considered significant.
d The 6-year (WGT2011_2017) case weights represent the population totals for female and male respondents aged 15-44 at the approximate midpoint of data collection (July 2014), adjusted to the US Census Bureau population projections.
e Includes persons who did not report being Hispanic, black, or white.
f Number of biological or nonbiological (ie, adopted/stepchild/partner’s child/grandchild/niece/nephew/legal ward/foster) children aged <18 living in the respondent’s household.
g Whether the respondent or any members of their family living in their household received WIC or SNAP in the past year.
h Determined by a response of “yes” to any of the following: (1) took money or drugs for sex, past year; (2) had sex with male injection drug user, past year; (3) chlamydia diagnosis, past year; (4) gonorrhea diagnosis, past year; (5) sex with an HIV-positive partner (for female respondents, only asked about male partners; for male respondents, asked about male and/or female partners), past year; and (6) sex with a nonmonogamous partner, past year.
Table 3.
Food insecurity among sexually active male adolescents and adults aged 15-44 (N = 10 438), by demographic characteristics, food assistance, and sexual behaviors, National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2017a
| Characteristic | Food Securityb | P Valuec | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food Insecure | Food Secure | ||||
| No. | % (95% CI) | No. | % (95% CI) | ||
| Unweighted sample size | 1189 | — | 9249 | — | — |
| Population total estimated | 4 602 000 | — | 45 264 000 | — | — |
| Demographic characteristics | |||||
| Age, y | <.001 | ||||
| 15-24 | 442 | 33.9 (30.5-37.4) | 2791 | 25.7 (24.1-27.2) | |
| 25-44 | 747 | 66.1 (62.6-69.5) | 6458 | 74.4 (72.8-75.9) | |
| Race/ethnicity | <.001 | ||||
| Hispanic | 312 | 24.8 (20.6-29.5) | 2058 | 21.0 (18.7-23.5) | |
| Non-Hispanic white | 491 | 49.0 (44.0-53.9) | 4815 | 60.1 (57.5-62.7) | |
| Non-Hispanic black | 342 | 21.6 (17.7-26.0) | 1766 | 12.4 (10.9-14.1) | |
| Non-Hispanic othere | 44 | 4.68 (2.93-7.40) | 610 | 6.5 (5.4-7.8) | |
| Education | <.001 | ||||
| <High school degree | 406 | 33.5 (29.7-37.6) | 1605 | 14.8 (13.5-16.1) | |
| High school degree or GED | 472 | 38.0 (34.1-42.1) | 2683 | 27.2 (25.5-28.9) | |
| >High school degree | 311 | 28.4 (24.5-32.7) | 4961 | 58.1 (55.9-60.2) | |
| Marital status | <.001 | ||||
| Married or cohabiting | 425 | 48.6 (44.2-53.0) | 4372 | 59.6 (57.7-61.5) | |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 97 | 6.0 (4.6-7.8) | 647 | 4.6 (4.1-5.1) | |
| Never been married | 667 | 45.4 (41.3-49.6) | 4230 | 35.8 (34.0-37.7) | |
| Residence in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) | .004 | ||||
| Principal city of MSA | 552 | 41.4 (35.9-47.1) | 3638 | 34.4 (31.0-37.9) | |
| Other MSA and non-MSA | 637 | 58.6 (52.9-64.2) | 5611 | 65.6 (62.1-69.0) | |
| Federal poverty level | |||||
| ≤100% | 524 | 43.6 (39.4-47.9) | 1644 | 14.7 (13.7-15.8) | <.001 |
| >100% | 665 | 56.4 (52.1-60.6) | 7605 | 85.3 (84.2-86.3) | |
| ≤200% | 888 | 73.6 (69.5-77.3) | 3490 | 33.8 (32.1-35.6) | <.001 |
| >200% | 301 | 26.5 (22.7-30.5) | 5759 | 66.2 (64.4-67.9) | |
| ≤300% | 1057 | 88.3 (85.0-90.9) | 5206 | 50.7 (48.6-52.7) | <.001 |
| >300% | 132 | 11.7 (9.1-15.0) | 4043 | 49.4 (47.3-51.4) | |
| ≤400% | 1126 | 93.7 (91.0-95.6) | 6463 | 65.6 (63.5-67.6) | <.001 |
| >400% | 63 | 6.3 (4.4-9.0) | 2786 | 34.4 (32.4-36.6) | |
| Past-year work status | <.001 | ||||
| Full time | 570 | 52.6 (48.2-56.9) | 6399 | 75.2 (73.6-76.6) | |
| Part time | 374 | 28.8 (25.3-32.4) | 1937 | 18.3 (17.0-19.6) | |
| Did not work | 245 | 18.7 (15.2-22.7) | 911 | 6.6 (5.9-7.4) | |
| No. of children aged <18 y living in householdf | .43 | ||||
| 0 | 816 | 58.1 (53.8-62.3) | 5963 | 56.0 (54.0-57.9) | |
| 1 | 123 | 13.5 (10.3-17.5) | 1265 | 16.0 (14.9-17.1) | |
| ≥2 | 250 | 28.4 (24.8-32.3) | 2021 | 28.1 (26.2-30.0) | |
| Received food assistance in past yearg | |||||
| WIC | n = 1171 | n = 9169 | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 263 | 25.6 (22.1-29.6) | 860 | 8.5 (7.6-9.5) | |
| No | 908 | 74.4 (70.4-78.0) | 8309 | 91.5 (90.5-92.4) | |
| SNAP | n = 1169 | n = 9139 | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 543 | 45.1 (40.7-49.5) | 1296 | 11.8 (10.7-13.0) | |
| No | 626 | 55.0 (50.5-59.3) | 7843 | 88.2 (87.0-89.3) | |
| WIC and/or SNAP | n = 1176 | n = 9188 | <.001 | ||
| Yes | 632 | 53.6 (49.5-57.7) | 1728 | 16.3 (15.0-17.7) | |
| No | 544 | 46.4 (42.3-50.5) | 7460 | 83.7 (82.3-85.0) | |
| Sexual behaviors | |||||
| Sex of respondent’s sex partner(s), past year | .01 | ||||
| Opposite- and same-sex partners | 40 | 3.1 (2.1-4.7) | 109 | 1.0 (0.8-1.3) | |
| Same-sex partner(s) only | 33 | 2.2 (1.5-3.3) | 253 | 2.4 (1.9-2.9) | |
| Opposite-sex partner(s) only | 1116 | 94.7 (92.9-96.0) | 8887 | 96.6 (96.0-97.1) | |
| Chlamydia diagnosis, past year | 30 | 1.9 (1.1-3.1) | 103 | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | .03 |
| Gonorrhea diagnosis, past year | 28 | 2.5 (1.5-4.0) | 77 | 0.4 (0.3-0.6) | .002 |
| Condom use at last vaginal sex (with female sex partner) | 469 | 36.3 (32.9-39.8) | 3563 | 35.1 (33.5-36.6) | .52 |
| Condom use at last anal sex (with female or male sex partner) | 241 | 36.6 (31.1-42.4) | 1563 | 35.4 (33.3-37.6) | .70 |
| Took money or drugs for sex, past year (from female or male) | 66 | 3.9 (2.8-5.5) | 121 | 1.0 (0.8-1.4) | <.001 |
| Had sex with male injection drug user, past year | 14 | 25.3 (13.2-43.0) | —h | —h | .01 |
| Had sex with an HIV-positive partner, past year (male or female) | 24 | 30.3 (18.1-46.1) | 42 | 8.1 (5.6-11.4) | .01 |
| Had nonmonogamous partner(s), past year | 283 | 19.9 (16.8-23.4) | 1297 | 11.8 (10.7-13.0) | <.001 |
| ≥1 Sexually transmitted infection risk indicator was reportedi | 321 | 21.9 (18.8-25.4) | 1438 | 12.5 (11.4-13.7) | <.001 |
Abbreviations: GED, general educational diploma; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
a Data source: National Center for Health Statistics.27
b Food insecurity was determined by a “yes” response to 2 questions: (1) In the past year, were you or any member of your family ever hungry but just couldn’t afford more food? and (2) In the last year, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food?
c P values were derived from Pearson χ2 analyses of food insecurity by each variable, with P < .05 considered significant.
d The 6-year (WGT2011_2017) case weights represent the population totals for female and male respondents aged 15-44 at the approximate midpoint of data collection (July 2014), adjusted to the US Census Bureau population projections.
e Includes persons who did not report being Hispanic, black, or white.
f Number of biological or nonbiological (ie, adopted/stepchild/partner’s child/grandchild/niece/nephew/legal ward/foster) children aged <18 living in the respondent’s household.
g Whether the respondent or any members of their family living in their household received WIC or SNAP in the past year.
h Data were suppressed because of small sample size.
i Determined by a response of “yes” to any of the following: (1) took money or drugs for sex, past year; (2) had sex with male injection drug user, past year; (3) chlamydia diagnosis, past year; (4) gonorrhea diagnosis, past year; (5) sex with an HIV-positive partner (for female respondents, only asked about male partners; for male respondents, asked about male and/or female partners), past year; and (6) sex with a nonmonogamous partner, past year.
Bivariate Associations Between STI Risk Indicators and Food Insecurity
Respondents who had been sexually active in the past year were less likely to report food insecurity than respondents who had not been sexually active in the past year (female respondents: χ2 = 7.60, P = .01; male respondents: χ2 = 5.78, P = .02; χ2 = 7.02, P < .001; data not shown).
In unadjusted analyses, respondents were more likely to report food insecurity than to report food security if, in the past year, they had opposite- and same-sex partners, reported a diagnosis of chlamydia or gonorrhea, took money or drugs for sex, had sex with a male injection drug user, had sex with an HIV-positive male partner or had nonmonogamous partner(s), or reported at least 1 STI risk indicator in the past year (Tables 2 and 3).
Multivariable Analyses
In adjusted analyses, female respondents living at ≤100% FPL (vs >100% FPL) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72; P < .001), and female respondents who had worked part time (vs full time) in the past year were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.19-1.63; P < .001; Table 4). If a female respondent or someone in her household had received WIC and/or SNAP benefits in the past year (vs not received these benefits), she was more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 3.37; 95% CI, 2.81-4.02; P <.001). Female respondents with both opposite-sex and same-sex partners (vs opposite-sex partners only) in the past year were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.85; P = .01). Female respondents who reported at least 1 STI risk indicator in the past year (vs no risk indicators) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.35-1.97; P < .001).
Table 4.
Adjusted risk ratio for food insecurity among adolescents and adults aged 15-44, by demographic characteristics, public assistance, and sexual behaviors, National Survey of Family Growth, September 2011–September 2015a
| Characteristic | Food Insecurityb | |
|---|---|---|
| Female (n = 13 083) | Male (n = 7281) | |
| ARR (95% CI) [P Value]c | ARR (95% CI) [P Value]c | |
| Demographic characteristics | ||
| Age, y | ||
| 15-24 | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| 25-44 | 1.15 (0.97-1.38) [.11] | 1.13 (0.88-1.45) [.35] |
| Race/ethnicity | ||
| Non-Hispanic white | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Hispanic | 0.89 (0.74-1.08) [.23] | 0.86 (0.68-1.08) [.18] |
| Non-Hispanic black | 0.94 (0.78-1.13) [.51] | 1.17 (0.91-1.50) [.22] |
| Non-Hispanic otherd | 0.76 (0.57-1.03) [.07] | 0.85 (0.51-1.39) [.50] |
| Education | ||
| >High school degree | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| <High school degree | 1.94 (1.60-2.34) [<.001] | 2.20 (1.68-2.86) [<.001] |
| High school degree or GED | 1.57 (1.30-1.89) [<.001] | 1.89 (1.49-2.40) [<.001] |
| Marital status | ||
| Married or cohabiting | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 1.94 (1.54-2.45) [<.001] | 1.44 (1.00-2.06) [.05] |
| Never been married | 1.07 (0.91-1.27) [.39] | 1.16 (0.86-1.56) [.33] |
| Residence in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) | ||
| Principal city of MSA | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Other MSA or non-MSA | 0.96 (0.81-1.14) [.65] | 0.81 (0.67-0.98) [.03] |
| Federal poverty level | ||
| >100% | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| ≤100% | 1.46 (1.23-1.72) [<.001] | 1.81 (1.49-2.20) [<.001] |
| Past-year work status | ||
| Full time | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Part time | 1.39 (1.19-1.63) [<.001] | 1.48 (1.19-1.84) [<.001] |
| Did not work | 1.19 (1.00-1.41) [.06] | 1.72 (1.27-2.34) [<.001] |
| No. of children aged <18 y living in householde | ||
| 0 | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| 1 | 0.98 (0.81-1.18) [.82] | 0.88 (0.63-1.21) [.42] |
| ≥2 | 0.94 (0.79-1.12) [.48] | 0.99 (0.76-1.30) [.97] |
| Received food assistance in past yearf | ||
| WIC or SNAP | ||
| No | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Yes | 3.37 (2.81-4.02) [<.001] | 3.27 (2.76-3.87) [<.001] |
| Sexual behaviors in past year | ||
| Sex of respondent’s sexual partner(s) | ||
| Opposite-sex partner(s) only | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Same-sex partner(s) only | 1.44 (1.11-1.85) [.01] | 1.99 (1.15-3.45) [.02] |
| Opposite- and same-sex partners | 1.36 (0.86-2.14) [.19] | 1.00 (0.63-1.60) [.99] |
| ≥1 Sexually transmitted infection risk indicator was reportedg | ||
| No | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Yes | 1.63 (1.35-1.97) [<.001] | 1.46 (1.16-1.85) [.002] |
Abbreviations: GED, general educational diploma; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
a Data source: National Center for Health Statistics.27
b Food insecurity was determined by a “yes” response to 2 questions: (1) In the past year, were you or any member of your family ever hungry but just couldn’t afford more food? and (2) In the last year, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food?
c P values were derived from Pearson χ2 analyses of food insecurity by each variable, with P < .05 considered significant.
d Includes persons who did not report being Hispanic, black, or white.
e Number of biological or nonbiological (ie, adopted/stepchild/partner’s child/grandchild/niece/nephew/legal ward/foster) children aged <18 living in the respondent’s household.
f Whether the respondent or any members of their family living in their household received WIC or SNAP in the past year.
g Determined by a response of “yes” to any of the following: (1) took money or drugs for sex, past year; (2) had sex with male injection drug user, past year; (3) chlamydia diagnosis, past year; (4) gonorrhea diagnosis, past year; (5) sex with an HIV-positive partner (for female respondents, only asked about male partners; for male respondents, asked about male and/or female partners), past year; and (6) sex with a nonmonogamous partner, past year.
In adjusted analyses, male respondents at ≤100% FPL (vs <100% FPL) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.49-2.20; P < .001; Table 4). Male respondents who had worked part time (ARR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.84; P < .001) or not worked (ARR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.34; P < .001) in the past year (vs worked full time) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity. If a male respondent or someone in his household had received WIC and/or SNAP benefits (vs not received these benefits) in the past year, he was significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 3.27; 95% CI, 2.76-3.87; P < .001). Male respondents who reported both opposite-sex and same-sex partners in the past year (vs opposite-sex partners only) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.15-3.42; P = .02). Male respondents who reported at least 1 STI risk indicator in the past year (vs no risk indicators) were significantly more likely to report food insecurity (ARR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.85; P = .002).
Models run with the covariate indicating FPL changed to thresholds of ≤200%, ≤300%, and ≤400% did not significantly affect the direction or magnitude of effects (data not shown).
Discussion
Male and female respondents to NSFG shared many of the same risk factors for food insecurity. Similar to other studies, this analysis also found an association between self-reported food insecurity and STI risk indicators in the United States.24 This association was extended to both sexes, existed even after accounting for the association between markers of poverty (eg, living at ≤100% FPL, receiving WIC or SNAP benefits), and expanded on findings from research using convenience samples or samples of predominantly high-risk persons by using a nationally representative sample that did not purposively select persons at risk for STIs.
Given the extent to which food insecurity is associated with other indicators of adversity, our analyses were unable to fully explore the pathways between food insecurity and STI risk. However, other research may shed light on this connection. It is possible that the need to procure food may result in transactional sexual encounters expressly or partially enacted to acquire food or the resources needed to procure food. In qualitative work in San Francisco with persons living with HIV/AIDS who were also food insecure, researchers found that food insecurity was linked with risky sex in 2 ways: (1) transactional sex as a way to procure food and (2) having sex without condoms expressly linked to food insecurity.29 Both women and men described having sex with men so that they could get food or get money to buy food when their food insecurity was severe. In fact, it was generally when they were at their most food insecure (ie, when they did not have access to any food) that they engaged in transactional sex for food procurement purposes. Some participants, though not all, could not always negotiate condom use during transactional sex when their food insecurity was at its most severe, either because they had been offered more money or because hunger made food more of a priority than practicing safer sex. For these participants, the socioeconomic imbalance between partners facilitated risky sex. Echoing this finding of socioeconomic imbalance, among young female sex workers (aged 14-29) in Vancouver, Canada, limited financial ability to afford food was associated with reports of client refusal to use condoms during sexual encounters.21
Food insecurity has also been linked to depression or depressive symptoms and other affective disorders,15,16,18,30,31 which have, in turn, been linked to engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors. It may be that increased levels of depression or depressive symptoms in food-insecure persons may result in higher levels of some types of high-risk sexual behavior. For example, even though depression does not seem to be linked to condom use,32,33 a longitudinal analysis observed that African American men and women who reported high levels of depressive symptoms were more likely to have had ≥6 partners in the past year than men and women who did not report high levels of depressive symptoms.33 Likewise, among men and women seeking care at a sexually transmitted disease clinic, persons who met cutoff scores for major depressive disorder were more likely to have traded sex for drugs or money in the past 30 days or to report a partner who used injection drugs than persons who did not meet cutoff scores for major depressive disorder.34 In another longitudinal study of women at risk of HIV acquisition, a consistent pattern of high-risk sexual behavior over time was associated with both food insecurity and depressive symptoms, independently.23 Although we were not able to examine the influence of depression or its interplay with food insecurity in these analyses, it may be that increased levels of depression or depressive symptoms as a result of food insecurity may be an important pathway through which engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors operates.
Other research has found that men who have sex with men and women may be more likely than men who have sex with men only to engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, such as giving or receiving drugs or money in exchange for sex35-37 or having higher rates of condomless sex.36,37 Men who have sex with men and women are also more likely than men who have sex with men only to report depression37 and substance use.37,38 Data on women who have sex with women and men are limited. It may be that psychosocial outcomes associated with a nonheterosexual orientation, such as depression and substance use associated with experiencing stigma, are part of an enmeshed web wherein they interact with social determinants of health such as food insecurity to amplify STI risk for men who have sex with men and women and women who have sex with men.
Limitations
This study had several limitations. First, whereas other analyses used standardized scales to assess food insecurity, such as the US Department of Agriculture’s Household Food Security Survey39 or Household Food Insecurity Access Scale,40 only 2 items were used to measure food insecurity in the NSFG. This shortened measure likely underestimated the number of persons classified as food insecure and may reflect a more severe level of food insecurity than might be detected by use of a more nuanced instrument. Although a full scale was not used, a meta-analysis of the association between food insecurity and HIV viral load suppression found that outcomes were consistent even when an attenuated measure of food insecurity was used.41
Second, our results are generalizable only to adolescents and adults aged 15-44 in US households and, as such, may not appropriately represent some groups at high risk for food insecurity, notably persons who are homeless. Third, because the NSFG is a population-based survey and did not specifically sample for persons at high risk for STI acquisition, the number of persons reporting a diagnosis of chlamydia or gonorrhea in the past year was low, in line with population prevalence, as were rates of engagement in some of the highest-risk sexual behaviors. Low endorsement rates for these items might have reduced the statistical power to detect associations between food insecurity and STI risk, especially as compared with data collections targeting persons at higher risk of STI acquisition.
Fourth, because data were cross-sectional, we could not draw inferences about the direction in which the relationship between food insecurity and STI risk operated, and findings could not be considered causal. Finally, because our composite measure of food insecurity included a question that asked about food assistance but did not specify a source of that assistance (ie, “In the last 12 months, did you receive free or reduced-cost food or meals because you couldn’t afford to buy food?”) alongside variables measuring receipt of SNAP or WIC, an unmeasured correlation could have influenced the results. To address concerns that findings may have been affected by an unmeasured correlation between this item and receipt of food assistance through SNAP or WIC, we also ran models that used only the single item of “In the past 12 months, were you or any member of your family ever hungry, but you just couldn’t afford more food?” to measure food insecurity. However, results did not differ, so we used the composite measure in our analyses.
Conclusion
Our analysis provides additional support for the link between STI risk indicators and reports of food insecurity in the United States. This net association persisted after accounting for markers of poverty and in a nationally representative survey that did not target persons among groups known to be at highest risk for STI and HIV acquisition or currently diagnosed with an STI or HIV infection. Because a substantial proportion of food-insecure respondents lived in households where they or a family member received WIC and/or SNAP benefits, it may behoove local STI prevention partners to work with agencies that offer governmental or nongovernmental food assistance to provide services or linkage to services for STI/HIV care. Furthermore, food insecurity should be considered a social determinant of health independent of poverty, and its effect on persons at highest risk for STIs, including HIV, should be considered when planning interventions designed to decrease engagement in high-risk sexual behaviors.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD: Penny S. Loosier, PhD, MPH 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1465-3558
Oscar Beltran, PhD
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0836-3749
References
- 1. Senn TE, Walsh JL, Carey MP. Mediators of the relation between community violence and sexual risk behavior among adults attending a public sexually transmitted infection clinic. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45(5):1069–1082. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0714-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Cooper HL, Bonney L, Luo R, et al. Public housing relocations and partnership dynamics in areas with high prevalences of sexually transmitted infections. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43(4):222–230. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Cooper HL, Haley DF, Linton S, et al. Impact of public housing relocations: are changes in neighborhood conditions related to STIs among relocaters? Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(10):573–579. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Closson K, Smith RV, Olarewaju G, Crosby R. Associations between economic dependence, sexual behaviours, and sexually transmitted infections among young, black, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men living with and without HIV in Jackson, Mississippi, USA. Sex Health. 2018;15(5):473–476. doi:10.1017/SH17218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Stenger MR, Samuel MC, Anschuetz GL, et al. Neighborhoods at risk: estimating risk of higher Neisseria gonorrhoeae incidence among women at the census tract level. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(11):649–655. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Lutfi K, Trepka MJ, Fennie KP, Ibanez G, Gladwin H. Racial residential segregation and risky sexual behavior among non-Hispanic blacks, 2006-2010. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:95–103. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hogben M, Leichliter JS. Social determinants and sexually transmitted disease disparities. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35(12 suppl):S13–S18. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31818d3cad [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample populations. J Nutr. 1990;120(suppl 11):1559–1600. doi:10.1093/jn/120.suppl–11.1555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbitt MP, Gregory CA, Singh A. Household Food Security in the United States in 2018. ERR-270 Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2019. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/94849/err-270.pdf?v=963.1. Accessed December 13, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Anema A, Vogenthaler N, Frongillo EA, Kadiyala S, Weiser SD. Food insecurity and HIV/AIDS: current knowledge, gaps, and research priorities. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2009;6(4):224–231. doi:10.1007/s11904-009-0030-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Martinson FE, et al. Heterosexually transmitted HIV infection among African Americans in North Carolina. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;41(5):616–623. doi:10.1097/01.qai.0000191382.62070.a5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Vogenthaler NS, Kushel MB, Hadley C, et al. Food insecurity and risky sexual behaviors among homeless and marginally housed HIV-infected individuals in San Francisco. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(5):1688–1693. doi:10.1007/s10461-012-0355-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Spinelli MA, Frongillo EA, Sheira LA, et al. Food insecurity is associated with poor HIV outcomes among women in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(12):3473–3477. doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1968-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Pellowski JA, Huedo-Medina TB, Kalichman SC. Food insecurity, substance use, and sexual transmission risk behavior among people living with HIV: a daily level analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47(7):1899–1907. doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0942-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Whittle HJ, Palar K, Seligman HK, Napoles T, Frongillo EA, Weiser SD. How food insecurity contributes to poor HIV health outcomes: qualitative evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Soc Sci Med. 2016;170:228–236. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.09.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Palar K, Kushel M, Frongillo EA, et al. Food insecurity is longitudinally associated with depressive symptoms among homeless and marginally-housed individuals living with HIV. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(8):1527–1534. doi:10.1007/s10461-014-0922-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Jennings L, Rompalo AM, Wang J, et al. Prevalence and correlates of knowledge of male partner HIV testing and serostatus among African-American women living in high poverty, high HIV prevalence communities (HPTN 064). AIDS Behav. 2015;19(2):291–301. doi:10.1007/s10461-014-0884-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Anema A, Weiser SD, Fernandes KA, et al. High prevalence of food insecurity among HIV-infected individuals receiving HAART in a resource-rich setting. AIDS Care. 2011;23(2):221–230. doi:10.1080/09540121.2010.498908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Kalichman SC, Hernandez D, Cherry C, Kalichman MO, Washington C, Grebler T. Food insecurity and other poverty indicators among people living with HIV/AIDS: effects on treatment and health outcomes. J Community Health. 2014;39(6):1133–1139. doi:10.1007/s10900-014-9868-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Shannon K, Kerr T, Milloy MJ, et al. Severe food insecurity is associated with elevated unprotected sex among HIV-seropositive injection drug users independent of HAART use. AIDS. 2011;25(16):2037–2042. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32834b35c9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Barreto D, Shannon K, Taylor C, et al. Food insecurity increases HIV risk among young sex workers in metro Vancouver, Canada. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(3):734–744. doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1558-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Wang EA, Zhu GA, Evans L, Carroll-Scott A, Desai R, Fiellin LE. A pilot study examining food insecurity and HIV risk behaviors among individuals recently released from prison. AIDS Educ Prev. 2013;25(2):112–123. doi:10.1521/aeap.2013.25.2.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Justman J, Befus M, Hughes J, et al. Sexual behaviors of US women at risk of HIV acquisition: a longitudinal analysis of findings from HPTN 064. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(7):1327–1337. doi:10.1007/s10461-014-0992-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Palar K, Laraia B, Tsai AC, Johnson MO, Weiser SD. Food insecurity is associated with HIV, sexually transmitted infections and drug use among men in the United States. AIDS. 2016;30(9):1457–1465. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000001095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Geisler WM, Wang C, Morrison SG, Black CM, Bandea CI, Hook EW III. The natural history of untreated Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the interval between screening and returning for treatment. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35(2):119–123. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318151497d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Haggerty CL, Gottlieb SL, Taylor BD, Low N, Xu F, Ness RB. Risk of sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women. J Infect Dis. 2010;201(suppl 2):S134–S155. doi:10.1086/652395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. National Center for Health Statistics. National Survey of Family Growth. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index.htm. Accessed December 13, 2019.
- 28. SUDAAN [computer software]. Release 11.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Intl; 2012.
- 29. Whittle HJ, Palar K, Napoles T, et al. Experiences with food insecurity and risky sex among low-income people living with HIV/AIDS in a resource-rich setting. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18:20293 doi:10.7448/IAS.18.1.20293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Anema A, Fielden SJ, Shurgold S, et al. Association between food insecurity and procurement methods among people living with HIV in a high resource setting. PLoS One. 2016;11(8): e0157630 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wang EA, McGinnis KA, Goulet J, et al. Food insecurity and health: data from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(3):261–268. doi:10.1177/0033335491513000313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Crepaz N, Marks G. Are negative affective states associated with HIV sexual risk behaviors? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 2001;20(4):291–299. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.20.4.291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Khan MR, Kaufman JS, Pence BW, et al. Depression, sexually transmitted infection, and sexual risk behavior among young adults in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(7):644–652. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.95 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Hutton HE, Lyketsos CG, Zenilman JM, Thompson RE, Erbelding EJ. Depression and HIV risk behaviors among patients in a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(5):912–914. doi:10.1176/appj.ajp.161.5.912 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Ellen JM, Greenberg L, Willard N, et al. Cross-sectional survey comparing HIV risk behaviours of adolescent and young adult men who have sex with men only and men who have sex with men and women in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91(6):458–461. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2014-051712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Shadaker S, Magee M, Paz-Bailey G, Hoots BE; NHBS Study Group. Characteristics and risk behaviors of men who have sex with men and women compared with men who have sex with men—20 US cities, 2011 and 2014. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;75(suppl 3):S281–S287. doi:10.1097/QAI.00000000000001403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Dyer TP, Regan R, Pacek LR, Acheampong A, Khan MR. Psychosocial vulnerability and HIV-related sexual risk among men who have sex with men and women in the United States. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(2):429–441. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0346-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Jeffries WL IV. Beyond the bisexual bridge: sexual health among U.S. men who have sex with men and women. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(3):320–329. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. U.S. household food security survey module: three-stage design, with screeners. https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/8271/hh2012.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed December 13, 2019.
- 40. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide, Version 3. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project; 2007. https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Aibibula W, Cox J, Hamelin AM, McLinden T, Klein MB, Brassard P. Association between food insecurity and HIV viral suppression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(3):754–765. doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1605-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]