Characterizing Profiles of Alternative Food Source Utilization Among New Food Bank Users in Urban, Semi-Urban, and Rural Settings in Quebec (Canada)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Inspired by bird & rieker’s conceptual model of constrained Choice³⁴ and Campbell’ s framework for US household food security.³²

Figure 2. Participants’ likelihood of membership in each profile of alternative food source utilization by setting.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of 990 new food bank users by profiles of alternative food source utilization in urban, semi-urban, and rural settings of Québec.

Socio-demographic characteristics	Rural			Semi-urban			Urban
	FB-exclusive users	FB and FV-market users	Multiple-AFS users	FB-exclusive users	FB and FV-market users	Multiple-AFS users	FB-exclusive users	FB and FV-market users	Multiple-AFS users
	n = 52 (29%)	n = 34 (19%)	n = 95 (52%)	n = 143 (58%)	n = 62 (25%)	n = 41 (17%)	n = 113 (20%)	n = 319 (57%)	n = 131 (23%)
Sex^*
Male	17 (32.7)	9 (26.5)	27 (28.4)	50 (35.0)	21 (33.9)	9 (22.0)	69 (61.1)	154 (48.3)	28 (21.4)
Female	35 (67.3)	25 (73.5)	68 (71.6)	93 (65.0)	41 (66.1)	32 (78.0)	44 (38.9)	165 (51.7)	103 (78.6)
Household composition^*
Single-parent home	6 (11.5)	8 (23.5)	37 (38.9)	35 (24.5)	16 (25.8)	17 (41.5)	12 (10.6)	61 (19.1)	28 (21.4)
Couple (with or without children)	15 (28.8)	9 (26.5)	26 (27.4)	37 (25.9)	22 (35.5)	9 (22.0)	18 (15.9)	78 (24.5)	36 (27.5)
Single (living alone or with others)	31 (59.6)	17 (50.0)	32 (33.7)	71 (49.7)	24 (38.7)	15 (36.6)	83 (73.5)	180 (56.4)	67 (51.1)
Household highest educational level ^*
Secondary level or less	36 (69.2)	26 (76.5)	56 (58.9)	77 (53.8)	27 (43.5)	21 (51.2)	68 (60.2)	152 (47.6)	48 (36.6)
Post-secondary studies	16 (30.8)	8 (23.5)	39 (41.1)	66 (46.2)	35 (56.5)	20 (48.8)	45 (39.8)	167 (52.4)	83 (63.4)
Annual household income^*
< CAN$14.999$	32 (61.5)	21 (61.8)	48 (51.6)	77 (56.2)	44 (72.1)	14 (34.1)	87 (81.3)	210 (68.9)	65 (50.4)
≥ CAN$15.000$	20 (38.5)	13 (38.2)	45 (48.4)	60 (43.8)	17 (27.9)	27 (65.9)	20 (18.7)	95 (31.1)	64 (49.6)
Household food security^,*
Severe food insecurity	32 (61.5)	20 (58.8)	41 (43.2)	59 (41.3)	23 (37.1)	15 (36.6)	69 (61.1)	150 (47)	52 (39.7)
At risk of severe food insecurity	20 (38.5)	14 (41.2)	54 (56.8)	84 (58.7)	39 (62.9)	26 (63.4)	44 (38.9)	169 (53)	79 (60.3)
Transport mode^*
Use any other form of transportation	22 (43.1)	11 (32.4)	26 (27.4)	73 (51.4)	40 (64.5)	13 (31.7)	87 (77.7)	239 (75.2)	70 (53.4)
Use its own car	29 (56.9)	23 (67.6)	69 (72.6)	69 (48.6)	22 (35.5)	28 (68.3)	25 (22.3)	79 (24.8)	61 (46.6)

*Phi-Cramer’s test: p values = <0.05.

Table 2. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics between alternative food source utilization profile of 990 new food bank users by setting in Québec.

Socio-demographic characteristics	Rural		Semi-urban		Urban
	Adjusted Odds ratio with robust standard errors (95% CI)
	FB and FV-market users n = 34 (19%)	Multiple-AFS users n = 95 (52%)	FB and FV-market users n = 62 (25%)	Multiple-AFS users n = 41 (17%)	FB and FV-market users n = 319 (57%)	Multiple-AFS users n = 131 (23%)
Sex Male Female	0.74 (0.25; 1.88) Ref.	0.82 (0.40; 1.75) Ref.	0.95 (0.48; 1.76) Ref.	0.52 (0.20; 1.14) Ref.	0.59 (0.36; 0.92) Ref.	0.17 (0.08; 0.28) Ref.
Household composition^a Single-parent home Couple (with or without children) Single (living alone or with others)	1.12 (0.31; 4.05) 2.39 (0.67; 10.55) Ref.	1.47 (0.56; 3.75) 5.96 (2.14; 24.29) Ref.	2.17 (0.96; 5.05) 1.72 (0.71; 4.45) Ref.	0.78 (0.24; 2.06) 1.52 (0.63; 3.90) Ref.	1.56 (0.88; 3.06) 1.86 (0.95; 4.17) Ref.	1.19 (0.55; 2.64) 1.27 (0.57; 3.02) Ref.
Household highest educational level ^b Secondary level or less Post-secondary studies	1.44 (0.54; 4.53) Ref.	0.64 (0.30; 1.25) Ref.	0.66 (0.35; 1.20) Ref.	0.94 (0.45; 2.02) Ref.	0.64 (0.41; 0.98) Ref.	0.46 (0.25; 0.75) Ref.
Annual household income^c < CAN$14.999$ ≥ CAN$15.000$	1.15 (0.43; 3.16) Ref.	0.78 (0.34; 1.66) Ref.	2.40 (1.29; 5.25) Ref.	0.39 (0.18; 0.79) Ref.	0.70 (0.39; 1.19) Ref.	0.33 (0.17; 0.62) Ref.
Household food security^d Severe food insecurity At risk of severe food insecurity	0.53 (0.24; 1.09) Ref.	0.49 (0.19; 1.21) Ref.	0.93 (0.36; 2.01) Ref.	1.10 (0.40; 2.70) Ref.	0.59 (0.33; 1.02) Ref.	0.87 (0.55; 1.37) Ref.
Transport mode^e Use any other form of transportation Use its own car	0.59 (0.19; 1.79) Ref.	0.57 (0.25; 1.27) Ref.	1.77 (0.91; 3.54) Ref.	0.53 (0.20; 1.19) Ref.	1.20 (0.65; 2.19) Ref.	0.58 (0.30; 1.10) Ref.

Refere: FB-exclusive users.

^aHousehold composition OR after adjusting by sex, income, and education.

^bHousehold education level OR after adjusting by sex.

^cAnnual household income OR after adjusting by sex, education, and household composition.

^dHousehold food insecurity OR adjusting by sex, education, household composition, household annual income, and transport mode.

^eTransport mode OR adjusting by sex, education, household composition, and household annual income.

Bird C, Rieker P. Gender and barriers to health. constrained choice in everyday decisions. In: Bird C, and Rieker P, eds. Gender and Health the Effects of Constrained Choices and Social Policies, 54–74, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

 Google Scholar

Campbell C. Food insecurity: a nutritional outcome or a predictor variable? J Nutr. 1991;121(3):408–415. doi:10.1093/jn/121.3.408.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar