Fig 1.
Conceptual framework for the relationships between potential correlates and outcomes of food insecurity.
Many of these relationships can be bidirectional with food insecurity, which adds to the complexity of this framework.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics: Adults on probation in Rhode Island by food security status, 2016 (n = 304).
N (%) or median (IQR)a.
Fig 2.
Percentage of adults on probation reporting each indicator of food insecurity in the last 30 days, by food security status (n = 304), Rhode Island, 2016.
For each of the ten indicators for food insecurity, the percentages of each level of food security that reported an affirmative response to each indicator are shown. For the indicators, cut the size of a meal or skipped a meal and did not eat for a whole day, the mean number of days that individuals that provided an affirmative response to these indicators are represented by food security level.
Table 2.
Self-reported dietary quality and food acquisition methods by food security status: Adults on probation in Rhode Island, 2016, N (%).
Table 3.
Multivariable odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for food insecurity from ordinal regression models: Adults on probation in Rhode Island, 2016 (n = 304).
Fig 3.
Kernel density estimates of probationers place of residence by food security status, 2016.
(A) Presents where participants with high food security reside. (B) Presents where participants with marginal food security reside. (C) Presents where participants with low food security reside. (D) Presents where participants with very low food security reside. The counts for each ramp represent the number of people per square mile. (E) Presents the median income ($) of the general population by quintiles at the census tract level. (F) Presents the employment rate of adults aged 16–64 years of the general population by quintiles at the census tract level. The blue box provides a study frame to reference the Kernel density estimates. This study frame was selected to include the majority of participants that lived within the catchment area for the specific probation office that was the venue for the study.