Seasonal prevalence and determinants of food insecurity in Iqaluit, Nunavut

Figures & data

Fig. 1.  The Canadian Territory of Nunavut with Iqaluit highlighted.

Table I. Variables included in data analysis as potential predictors of food security among Inuit respondents in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in September 2012 and May 2013

	Predictor	Description	Justification	Type
Individual-level questions	Age	Age of the person in charge of food preparation	Elderly respondents might be more food secure due to better budget management skills (8)	Categorical
	Sex	Sex of the person in charge of food preparation	Women are hypothesized to experience higher food insecurity (9, 12)	Categorical/dichotomous
	Formal education level	Highest level of formal education attained by the person in charge of food preparation	Higher formal education level has been associated with reduced food insecurity (31)	Categorical/ordinal
	Employment status	Current employment status of the person in charge of food preparation	Employment has been associated with reduced food insecurity (8)	Categorical/ordinal
Household-level	Presence of child in household	Presence of a person under the age 18 currently residing in the household	Households with children experience higher food insecurity (5, 31)	Categorical/dichotomous
questions	Consumption of country food	Frequency of consumption of country food in the last month of the person who had the most recent birthday	Respondents who regularly consumed country food were less likely to be food insecure (9)	Categorical/ordinal
	Presence of mould and/or major repairs required	Whether the house had a problem with mould and/or was in need of major repairs	Respondents who live in a house requiring major repairs were more likely to experience food insecurity. Mould was also tested in the model (7)	Categorical/dichotomous
	Reliance on income support	Whether any member in the household received income support in the past month (Government of Nunavut income support programme)	Households that rely on income support experience higher food insecurity (7)	Categorical/dichotomous
–	Season	The season during which the respondent was surveyed (September–October or May–June)	Country food availability varies with season in various Indigenous communities (13)	Categorical/dichotomous

Table II. Food security status of Iqaluit, Nunavut, respondents in September 2012 and May 2013^a

Food security		September 2012				May 2013
status	n	All households	Inuit respondents	Non-Inuit respondents	n	All households	Inuit respondents	Non-Inuit respondents
High food security	286	64.1 (59.7–68.6)	44.9 (38.9–50.9)	92.8 (89.0–96.6)	297	65.6 (61.2–70.0)	44.0 (37.9–50.1)	94.4 (91.2–97.7)
Marginal food security	32	7.2 (4.8–9.6)	10.5 (6.8–14.2)	2.2 (0–4.4)	33	7.3 (4.9–9.7)	11.2 (7.4–15.2)	2.0 (0–4.0)
Low food security	57	12.8 (9.7–15.9)	20.2 (15.4–25.1)	3.3 (0–6.0)	51	11.3 (8.3–14.2)	19.1 (14.2–23.9)	1.6 (0–3.2)
Very low food security	71	15.9 (12.5–19.3)	24.3 (19.2–29.5)	1.7 (0–3.6)	72	15.9 (12.5–19.3)	25.7 (20.3–31.1)	2.0 (0–4.0)

^aValues are percentages (95% CI).

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding off.

Fig. 2.  Food security status of respondents based on ethnic origin, in September 2012 and May 2013.

Table III. Chi-squared results of predictors of food insecurity, Inuit respondents only, in Iqaluit, Nunavut, September 2012^a

	Total	Food secure	Food insecure	Probability (chi-squared)
Age	264 (100)	145 (55)	119 (45)	0.986
0–21 years old	28 (100)	15 (54)	13 (46)
21–40 years old	103 (100)	57 (55)	46 (45)
41+ years old	133 (100)	73 (55)	60 (45)
Sex	268 (100)	148 (55)	120 (45)	0.764
Male	89 (100)	48 (54)	41 (46)
Female	179 (100)	100 (56)	79 (44)
Education	267 (100)	147 (55)	120 (45)	<0.01
High school not completed	168 (100)	79 (47)	89 (53)
High school completed	50 (100)	28 (56)	22 (44)
College or above	49 (100)	40 (82)	9 (18)
Employment	267 (100)	147 (55)	120 (45)	<0.01
Full-time	93 (100)	71 (76)	22 (24)
Part-time	11 (100)	7 (64)	4 (36)
Unemployed	163 (100)	69 (42)	94 (58)
Presence of a child (<18 years) in household	268 (100)	148 (55)	120 (45)	0.898
Yes	144 (100)	79 (55)	65 (45)
No	124 (100)	69 (56)	55 (44)
Country food consumption (meat from land and/or freshly caught fish in half or more of all meals)	265 (100)	145 (55)	120 (45)	0.872
Yes	109 (100)	59 (54)	50 (46)
No	156 (100)	86 (55)	70 (45)
Poor housing conditions (mould and/or major repairs)	258 (100)	142 (55)	116 (45)	<0.01
Yes	83 (100)	28 (34)	55 (66)
No	175 (100)	114 (65)	61 (35)
Reliance on income support	266 (100)	147 (55)	119 (45)	<0.01
Yes	95 (100)	25 (26)	70 (74)
No	171 (100)	122 (71)	49 (29)
Season	522 (100)	286 (55)	236 (45)	0.838
September–October	268 (100)	148 (55)	120 (45)
May	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)

^aValues are number of respondents (percent).

Table IV. Chi-squared results of predictors of food insecurity, Inuit respondents only, in Iqaluit, Nunavut, May 2013^a

	Total (%)	Food secure (%)	Food insecure (%)	Probability (Chi-squared)
Age	252 (100)	136 (54)	116 (46)	0.811
0–20 years old	34 (100)	17 (50)	17 (50)
21–40 years old	98 (100)	55 (56)	43 (44)
41+ years old	120 (100)	64 (53)	56 (47)
Sex	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)	0.925
Male	89 (100)	48 (54)	41 (46)
Female	165 (100)	90 (55)	75 (45)
Education	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)	0.018
High school not completed	143 (100)	67 (47)	76 (53)
High school completed	64 (100)	43 (67)	21 (33)
College or above	47 (100)	28 (60)	19 (40)
Employment	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)	<0.01
Full-time	87 (100)	66 (76)	21 (24)
Part-time	16 (100)	7 (44)	9 (56)
Unemployed	151 (100)	65 (43)	86 (57)
Presence of a child (<18 years) in household	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)	0.807
Yes	149 (100)	80 (54)	69 (46)
No	105 (100)	58 (55)	47 (45)
Country food consumption (meat from land and/or freshly caught fish in half or more of all meals)	252 (100)	137 (54)	115 (46)	0.422
Yes	81 (100)	47 (58)	34 (42)
No	171 (100)	90 (53)	81 (47)
Poor housing conditions (mould and/or major repairs)	250 (100)	137 (55)	113 (45)	<0.01
Yes	82 (100)	31 (38)	51 (62)
No	168 (100)	106 (63)	62 (37)
Reliance on income support	254 (100)	138 (54)	116 (46)	<0.01
Yes	92 (100)	26 (28)	66 (72)
No	162 (100)	112 (69)	50 (31)

^aValues are number of respondents (percent).

Table V. Logistic regression models results in both seasons (September 2012 and May 2013), Inuit respondents only^a in Iqaluit, Nunavut

Multivariable Logistic Regression ModelOutcome: Food secure status	Model of best fit
Number of observations	501
Pseudo R^2	0.18
Age
Respondents age 0–20	0.35* (0.15–0.83)
Respondents age 21–40	0.43* (0.24–0.76)
Respondents age 41 and older	ref.
Person responsible for food preparation is employed	2.19* (1.40–3.43)
Presence of mould in house/major repairs required	0.42* (0.27–0.64)
Reliance on income support	0.25* (0.16–0.39)
Season
September 2012	ref.
May 2013	0.95 (0.64–1.42)

*p < 0.01.

^aValues are odds ratio (95% CI).

Table VI. Published prevalence of food insecurity in communities/regions of Canada

Area of study	Prevalence of food insecurity (%)	Recall period	Survey month	Target population	Survey used	Year of survey	Author(s), year of publication
Kugaaruk, Nunavut	83 (adult) 82 (child)	12 months	October–November 2011	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2001	Lawn & Harvey, 2003 (3)
Nunavut	69.6 (household) 56.1 (child)	12 months	Summer and fall 2007, 2008	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2007–2008	Egeland et al., 2010 (5)
Nunavut	68.8	12 months	Summer and fall 2007, 2008	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2007–2008	Rosol et al., 2011 (6)
Igloolik, Nunavut	64	12 months	Summer 2007	Iglulingmiut	Modified US FSSM	2007	Ford & Berrang–Ford 2009 (9)
36 communities of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut and Nunatsiavut	62.6	12 months	Summer and fall 2007 and 2008	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2007–2008	Huet et al., 2012 (7)
Inuvialuit Settlement Region	43.3	12 months	Summer and fall 2007, 2008	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2007–2008	Rosol et al., 2011 (6)
Kangiqsujuaq, Nunavik	40 (adult) 40 (child)	12 months	May–June 2002	Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2002	Lawn & Harvey, 2004 (19)
Iqaluit, Nunavut	28.7 (September) 27.2 (May)^a	1 month	September–October 2012, May 2013	Inuit and Non-Inuit	Modified US FSSM	2012–2013	This paper
Nunavut	36.2	12 months	January 2011 to December 2012 (ongoing)	Population of Nunavut	Modified US FSSM	2011–2012	Statistics Canada 2013 (34)
Canadian average	8.3	12 months	January 2011 to December 2012 (ongoing)	Canadian Population	Modified US FSSM	2011–2012	Statistics Canada 2013 (34)

^aAmong Inuit only, prevalence is 44.7 and 45.7% in September and May, respectively.

Table

Food security status level			Score^a
General category	FSSM Category	Code	Households with children (out of 18)	Households without children (out of 10)
Food secure	High food security	0	0	0
Marginal food security	1	1–2	1–2
Food insecure	Low food security	2	3–7	3–5
Very low food security	3	8–18	6–10

^aValues are number of affirmative responses.

Appendix B: Database and food security coding of Food Security Survey Module answers

	FSSM answer	Database coding	Food security coding
Positive	Yes	1	1
	Often	1
	Sometimes	2
	Almost every day of the month	1
	About half the days during the month	2
Negative	Never	3	0
	No	0
	A few days during the month	3