Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

The assessment of food security in homeless individuals: a comparison of the Food Security Survey Module and the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature133107
Source
Public Health Nutr. 2011 Dec;14(12):2254-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Dec-2011
Author
Anna C Holland
Matthew C Kennedy
Stephen W Hwang
Author Affiliation
Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
Source
Public Health Nutr. 2011 Dec;14(12):2254-9
Date
Dec-2011
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Canada
Cross-Sectional Studies
Diet Surveys
Family Characteristics
Female
Food Supply - statistics & numerical data
Guidelines as Topic
Homeless Persons
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Questionnaires
Software
United States
Abstract
To compare the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals.
A cross-sectional survey.
Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada.
Fifty individuals who were =18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless.
The modified US FSSM assigned 20% of participants to a lower ordinal food security category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8% to a higher food security category. The HFIAS assigned 30% of participants to a lower food security category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10-16% of participants to a higher food security category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62%) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless.
A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food security in the homeless population.
PubMed ID
21740619 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cognitive interviewing methods for questionnaire pre-testing in homeless persons with mental disorders.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature129424
Source
J Urban Health. 2012 Feb;89(1):36-52
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2012
Author
Carol E Adair
Anna C Holland
Michelle L Patterson
Kate S Mason
Paula N Goering
Stephen W Hwang
Author Affiliation
Department of Community Health Sciences and Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. ceadair@ucalgary.ca
Source
J Urban Health. 2012 Feb;89(1):36-52
Date
Feb-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Canada
Female
Homeless Persons - psychology
Humans
Interview, Psychological - methods
Male
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Middle Aged
Psychometrics - instrumentation
Questionnaires
Abstract
In this study, cognitive interviewing methods were used to test targeted questionnaire items from a battery of quantitative instruments selected for a large multisite trial of supported housing interventions for homeless individuals with mental disorders. Most of the instruments had no published psychometrics in this population. Participants were 30 homeless adults with mental disorders (including substance use disorders) recruited from service agencies in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto, Canada. Six interviewers, trained in cognitive interviewing methods and using standard interview schedules, conducted the interviews. Questions and, in some cases, instructions, for testing were selected from existing instruments according to a priori criteria. Items on physical and mental health status, housing quality and living situation, substance use, health and justice system service use, and community integration were tested. The focus of testing was on relevance, comprehension, and recall, and on sensitivity/acceptability for this population. Findings were collated across items by site and conclusions validated by interviewers. There was both variation and similarity of responses for identified topics of interest. With respect to relevance, many items on the questionnaires were not applicable to homeless people. Comprehension varied considerably; thus, both checks on understanding and methods to assist comprehension and recall are recommended, particularly for participants with acute symptoms of mental illness and those with cognitive impairment. The acceptability of items ranged widely across the sample, but findings were consistent with previous literature, which indicates that "how you ask" is as important as "what you ask." Cognitive interviewing methods worked well and elicited information crucial to effective measurement in this unique population. Pretesting study instruments, including standard instruments, for use in special populations such as homeless individuals with mental disorders is important for training interviewers and improving measurement, as well as interpreting findings.
Notes
Cites: Qual Health Res. 2000 Jan;10(1):26-3810724750
Cites: Psychiatr Serv. 2000 Apr;51(4):487-9310737824
Cites: CMAJ. 2001 Jan 23;164(2):229-3311332321
Cites: Ment Health Serv Res. 2001 Sep;3(3):141-5311718206
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 2002 Jan;54(1):11-2111820675
Cites: Psychiatr Serv. 2002 Nov;53(11):1472-412407279
Cites: Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):229-3812769135
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2004 Apr;94(4):651-615054020
Cites: Community Ment Health J. 2004 Apr;40(2):133-5015206638
Cites: Milbank Q. 1994;72(1):123-488164605
Cites: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1996 Mar;31(2):78-888881088
Cites: Can J Commun Ment Health. 1996 Spring;15(1):5-2010163559
Cites: J Nerv Ment Dis. 1996 Nov;184(11):667-728955679
Cites: Med Care. 1997 Mar;35(3):287-909071259
Cites: J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-579881538
Cites: Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(4):1035-4115957202
Cites: Res Nurs Health. 2006 Jun;29(3):244-5216676343
Cites: Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Jul;189:65-7316816308
Cites: J Urban Health. 2006 Sep;83(5):860-7316779686
Cites: Am J Addict. 2006;15 Suppl 1:80-9117182423
Cites: Soc Secur Bull. 2007;67(1):53-6217972788
Cites: Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008 Sep;35(5):370-818561020
Cites: JAMA. 2009 Apr 1;301(13):1349-5719336710
Cites: JAMA. 2009 May 6;301(17):1771-819417194
Cites: Milbank Q. 2009 Jun;87(2):495-53419523126
Cites: Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):863-7219582592
Cites: Am J Public Health. 2010 Aug;100(8):1454-6120558789
PubMed ID
22109879 View in PubMed
Less detail