Table 5. Characteristics of Participants in the Enhanced Lifestyle for Metabolic Syndrome Trial, According to Movement Between High Food Security and Marginal, Low, or Very Low Food Security From Baseline to Follow-Up During a COVID-19–Mandated Pause in Research, USa .
| Characteristicb | High food security to high food security (n = 103) | Marginal, low, very low food security to high food security (n = 16) | High food security to marginal, low, very low food security (n = 6) | Marginal, low, very low food security to marginal, low, very low food security (n = 7) | P valuec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographic, no. (%) | |||||
| White race (vs all other categories of race and ethnicity) | 78 (76) | 8 (50) | 4 (67) | 2 (29) | .02 |
| 4-Year degree or more (vs <4-year degree) | 65 (63) | 12 (75) | 2 (33) | 2 (29) | .09 |
| Male vs female | 34 (33) | 3 (19) | 3 (50) | 4 (57) | .25 |
| Employed full-time (vs all other categories of employment) | 61 (59) | 11 (69) | 3 (50) | 5 (71) | .76 |
| Somewhat hard to pay for basics (vs not hard at all) | 4 (4) | 4 (25) | 1 (17) | 3 (43) | <.001 |
| Eating competent (vs non–eating competent)d | 55 (53) | 3 (19) | 2 (33) | 2 (29) | .03 |
| Low or very low food security (vs high or marginal)e | 0 | 3 (19) | 0 | 4 (57) | <.001 |
| Follow up PHQ-8 score ≥10 (vs <10) f | 6 (6) | 1 (6) | 1 (17) | 2 (29) | .13 |
| Scores and scales, mean (SD) | |||||
| EC scored , g | 31.9 (6.6) | 27.0 (6.3) | 26.3 (7.5) | 24.4 (9.9) | .001 |
| EC–eating attitudesh | 13.6 (2.9) | 10.9 (3.7) | 11.7 (2.7) | 12.1 (3.5) | .006 |
| EC–food acceptancei | 5.0 (1.8) | 4.6 (1.7) | 2.5 (1.6) | 3.0 (2.8) | .001 |
| EC–internal regulationj | 4.1 (1.4) | 3.8 (1.3) | 4.2 (1.3) | 3.0 (2.1) | .20 |
| EC–contextual skillsk | 9.2 (2.9) | 7.8 (2.2) | 8.0 (4.2) | 6.3 (3.1) | .02 |
| Annual household income, $ | 101,733 (59,769) | 84,615 (58,703) | 86,067 (52,283) | 65,714 (63,458) | .35 |
| Body mass indexl | 36.2 (7.0) | 37.2 (5.1) | 37.4 (8.4) | 39.6 (7.1) | .80 |
| Age, y | 58.3 (10.1) | 40.4 (13.5) | 62.8 (6.1) | 47.7 (10.7) | .002 |
| Perceived stress scorem | 18.3 (6.1) | 18.2 (5.8) | 15.0 (7.8) | 25.3 (7.4) | .02 |
| Short form-Vitalityn | 59.8 (19.5) | 60.6 (16.7) | 55.2 (21.1) | 47.3 (21.3) | .39 |
| Short form-Mental Healtho | 81.9 (10.8) | 79.1 (10.0) | 81.7 (14.0) | 73.6 (14.4) | .23 |
| PHQ-8f , p | 2.1 (2.4) | 2.3 (2.4) | 1.5 (1.4) | 2.6 (2.2) | .86 |
Abbreviations: EC, eating competence; PHQ-8, Patient Health Questionnaire-8.
Baseline took place October 16, 2019–March 12, 2020; follow-up took place June 4, 2020–July 28, 2020.
All characteristics were noted at baseline unless otherwise indicated.
Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact test used to determine P values for number (percentage); analysis of variance used to determine P values for mean (SD).
Determined by the Satter Eating Competence Inventory. Eating competence is an intra-individual approach to eating and food behaviors that is associated with positive health outcomes, measured on a 16-item scale (7–11). Scores may range from 0 to 48; eating competence is defined as a score ≥32.
Assessed by the 10-Item US Adult Food Security Module (15). Scores range from 0 to 10; food secure = score of 0; marginal = score of 1 or 2; low or very low = score 3–10.
8-Item self-report measure to diagnose depressive disorders and assess level of severity (14). Scores can range from 0 to 24: 0–4, no to minimal depression; 5–9, mild; 10–14 moderate; 15–19, moderately severe; and 20–24, severe.
Score remained significantly different among food security movement groups when we controlled for annual household income (P = .001) and difficulty paying for basics (P = .046).
Possible range 0–18. Significant difference found between high food security to high security group and marginal, low, very low food security to high food security group.
Possible range 0–9.
Possible range 0–6.
Possible range 0–15.
Calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m2); obesity defined as body mass index ≥30.0.
Assessed by the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale, which measures the degree to which situations in a person’s life are deemed stressful (13). Total scores range from 0 to 56 and can be categorized as low stress (score 0–19) or high stress (score 20–56). Those continuing to be marginally, low, or very low food secure perceived significantly more stress than those continuing to be highly food secure or moving from high to marginal, low, or very low food security.
4-Item SF-Vitality assesses energy and fatigue status, and is part of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, which assesses health-related quality of life across 8 categories (12). Scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate greater vitality.
5-Item SF-Mental Health assesses general mental health, especially depression and anxiety, and is part of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, which assesses health-related quality of life across 8 categories (12). Scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better mental health.
Analysis of variance with transformed PHQ-8 scores.