TABLE 3—
Emerging Adults’ Food Insecurity and Markers of Food Literacy, Home Food Availability, and Health Risk Behaviors: Findings From a 2017–2018 Survey of Participants in the EAT 2010 Study in Minneapolis–St Paul, MN
| Unadjusted | Adjusteda | |||||
| Food Secureb | Food Insecureb | Pc | Food Secureb | Food Insecureb | Pc | |
| Food literacy (% confident) | ||||||
| Plan meals | 49.7 | 47.7 | .52 | 50.2 | 48.9 | .69 |
| Follow a recipe | 65.4 | 68.8 | .24 | 67.2 | 73.1 | .06 |
| Prepare a meal from items on hand | 65.5 | 66.5 | .74 | 66.9 | 67.2 | .92 |
| Use basic cooking techniques | 77.6 | 75.9 | .50 | 79.6 | 78.6 | .72 |
| Stay within a food budget | 65.8 | 62.4 | .23 | 66.8 | 62.7 | .2 |
| Home food availability (% usually or always) | ||||||
| Fruits and vegetables are available | 76.7 | 56.6 | < .001 | 76.8 | 59.4 | < .001 |
| Vegetables are part of dinner | 68.3 | 50.3 | < .001 | 69.0 | 50.6 | < .001 |
| Fresh fruit is accessible | 67.7 | 46.8 | < .001 | 68.2 | 49.9 | < .001 |
| Ready-to-eat vegetables | 55.1 | 42.2 | < .001 | 54.5 | 44.5 | .003 |
| Whole-wheat bread is available | 57.1 | 46.3 | < .001 | 57.0 | 47.9 | .006 |
| Eating and meal behaviors | ||||||
| Skip breakfast (% ≥ 2 d/wk) | 61.5 | 76.2 | < .001 | 62.0 | 74.1 | < .001 |
| Prepare meals at home (% ≥ 5 times/wk) | 41.0 | 32.8 | .006 | 40.7 | 33.2 | .022 |
| Frequent fast-food intake (% ≥ 3 times/wk) | 49.5 | 60.1 | < .001 | 49.6 | 59.1 | .004 |
| Binge eating (% ever overeat) | 18.4 | 25.3 | .005 | 17.8 | 25.6 | .003 |
| Substance use | ||||||
| Cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs (% any use past week) | 18.8 | 34.3 | < .001 | 16.5 | 28.3 | < .001 |
| Binge drinking (% any episode in past 2 weeks) | 35.5 | 43.8 | .005 | 35.2 | 44.4 | .004 |
Note. EAT = Eating and Activity over Time. Food insecurity determined by reporting “yes” to both questions: “In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?” and “In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there was not enough money for food?”
Adjusted model includes gender identity, ethnicity/race, parent socioeconomic status, student status, employment status, receipt of public assistance, and living situation. Generalized linear models were used to examine statistical associations of each health behavior marker with food security status, and the inverse linked scale option was used to estimate adjusted prevalences.
Values are weighted to reflect the probability of responding to the follow-up EAT 2018 surveys.
P values associated with maximum likelihood parameter estimates for the main effect in adjusted model. Separate models were used to examine whether observed associations between food insecurity in emerging adulthood and health behavior markers were consistent across the adolescent food security groups. Among 16 interaction tests (adolescent food security by emerging adult food security status), there were no tests with P < .1.