Complementing the United States household food security survey module with items reflecting social unacceptability

BACKGROUND: Social unacceptability of food access is part of the lived experience of food insecurity but is not assessed as part of the United States Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM). 

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were as follows: 1) to determine the psychometric properties of 2 additional items on social unacceptability in relation to the HFSSM items and 2) to test whether these 2 items provided added predictive accuracy to that of the HFSSM items for mental health outcomes. 

METHODS: Cross-sectional data used were from the Intersection of Material-Need Insecurities and HIV and Cardiovascular Health substudy of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study/Women's Interagency HIV Study Combined Cohort Study. Data on the 10-item HFSSM and 2 new items reflecting social unacceptability were collected between Fall 2020 and Fall 2021 from 1342 participants from 10 United States cities. The 2 social unacceptability items were examined psychometrically in relation to the HFSSM-10 items using models from item response theory. Linear and logistic regression was used to examine prediction of mental health measured by the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale and the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale. 

RESULTS: The social unacceptability items were affirmed throughout the range of severity of food insecurity but with increasing frequency at higher severity of food insecurity. From item response theory models, the subconstructs reflected in the HFSSM-10 and the subconstruct of social unacceptability were distinct, not falling into one dimension. Regression models confirmed that social unacceptability was distinct from the subconstructs reflected in the HFSSM-10. The social unacceptability items as a separate scale explained more (∼1%) variation in mental health than when combined with the HFSSM-10 items in a single scale, and the social unacceptability subconstruct explained more (∼1%) variation in mental health not explained by the HFSSM-10. 

CONCLUSIONS: Two social unacceptability items used as a separate scale along with the HFSSM-10 predicted mental health more accurately than did the HFSSM-10 alone.