The Experts below are selected from a list of 12105 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ingeborg A. Brouwer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dutch Food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low socioeconomic status dutch adult population
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Judith E. Neter, Marjolein Visser, S C Dijkstra, A L M Dekkers, Marga C Ocke, Ingeborg A. BrouwerAbstract:Food-Assistance Program users are a specific group of nutritional concern, as they are often Food insufficient and have poorer diet quality compared to non-Food-Assistance Program users. The aim of our study was to assess dietary intake of Dutch Food bank recipients (n = 167) and to compare this with dietary intake of a representative sample of the general population (Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS-all): n = 1933), including a low-socioeconomic status (SES) sample (DNFCS-low SES: n = 312), using data from the DNFCS 2007–2010. In this cross-sectional study, 12 Food banks throughout The Netherlands participated. Food bank recipients’ characteristics were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. Dietary intake data were collected through three 24-h recalls. Habitual dietary intake (mean, percentiles, and 95% CI) was estimated for all samples. Differences between samples were determined by comparing the 95% CIs. Mean age of the study population (62.9% female) was 48.6 years (SD:10.1). Mean energy intake was 1986 (95% CI 1830–2089) kcal. The majority of the Dutch Food bank recipients had lower intakes than dietary reference intakes for dietary fiber, fruit, vegetables, and fish (range 86.6–99.3%), and a higher intake for saturated fat [88.1% (95% CI 84.1–98.9)]. Furthermore, mean intakes of energy, fiber, fruit, and vegetables were significantly lower in Dutch Food bank recipients than in the DNFCS-all and the DNFCS-low-SES [e.g., daily mean fruit intake (g) Food bank recipients 62.8 (95% CI 45.5–76.5), DNFCS-all 105.8 (95% CI 105.4–117.9), and DNFCS-low-SES 85.1 (95% CI 78.7–100.2)]. Fish intake was significantly lower compared with the DNFCS-all, but not compared with the DNFCS-low-SES. Dutch Food bank recipients, who largely rely on the content of Food parcels, are not able to meet the nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet, and their dietary intake is poorer than the general as well as the low-SES sample of the Dutch adult population. More research is needed on how to improve the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup, by, e.g., revising the content of the Food parcels, and to develop effective intervention activities.
Marjolein Visser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dutch Food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low socioeconomic status dutch adult population
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Judith E. Neter, Marjolein Visser, S C Dijkstra, A L M Dekkers, Marga C Ocke, Ingeborg A. BrouwerAbstract:Food-Assistance Program users are a specific group of nutritional concern, as they are often Food insufficient and have poorer diet quality compared to non-Food-Assistance Program users. The aim of our study was to assess dietary intake of Dutch Food bank recipients (n = 167) and to compare this with dietary intake of a representative sample of the general population (Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS-all): n = 1933), including a low-socioeconomic status (SES) sample (DNFCS-low SES: n = 312), using data from the DNFCS 2007–2010. In this cross-sectional study, 12 Food banks throughout The Netherlands participated. Food bank recipients’ characteristics were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. Dietary intake data were collected through three 24-h recalls. Habitual dietary intake (mean, percentiles, and 95% CI) was estimated for all samples. Differences between samples were determined by comparing the 95% CIs. Mean age of the study population (62.9% female) was 48.6 years (SD:10.1). Mean energy intake was 1986 (95% CI 1830–2089) kcal. The majority of the Dutch Food bank recipients had lower intakes than dietary reference intakes for dietary fiber, fruit, vegetables, and fish (range 86.6–99.3%), and a higher intake for saturated fat [88.1% (95% CI 84.1–98.9)]. Furthermore, mean intakes of energy, fiber, fruit, and vegetables were significantly lower in Dutch Food bank recipients than in the DNFCS-all and the DNFCS-low-SES [e.g., daily mean fruit intake (g) Food bank recipients 62.8 (95% CI 45.5–76.5), DNFCS-all 105.8 (95% CI 105.4–117.9), and DNFCS-low-SES 85.1 (95% CI 78.7–100.2)]. Fish intake was significantly lower compared with the DNFCS-all, but not compared with the DNFCS-low-SES. Dutch Food bank recipients, who largely rely on the content of Food parcels, are not able to meet the nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet, and their dietary intake is poorer than the general as well as the low-SES sample of the Dutch adult population. More research is needed on how to improve the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup, by, e.g., revising the content of the Food parcels, and to develop effective intervention activities.
Judith E. Neter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dutch Food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low socioeconomic status dutch adult population
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Judith E. Neter, Marjolein Visser, S C Dijkstra, A L M Dekkers, Marga C Ocke, Ingeborg A. BrouwerAbstract:Food-Assistance Program users are a specific group of nutritional concern, as they are often Food insufficient and have poorer diet quality compared to non-Food-Assistance Program users. The aim of our study was to assess dietary intake of Dutch Food bank recipients (n = 167) and to compare this with dietary intake of a representative sample of the general population (Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS-all): n = 1933), including a low-socioeconomic status (SES) sample (DNFCS-low SES: n = 312), using data from the DNFCS 2007–2010. In this cross-sectional study, 12 Food banks throughout The Netherlands participated. Food bank recipients’ characteristics were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. Dietary intake data were collected through three 24-h recalls. Habitual dietary intake (mean, percentiles, and 95% CI) was estimated for all samples. Differences between samples were determined by comparing the 95% CIs. Mean age of the study population (62.9% female) was 48.6 years (SD:10.1). Mean energy intake was 1986 (95% CI 1830–2089) kcal. The majority of the Dutch Food bank recipients had lower intakes than dietary reference intakes for dietary fiber, fruit, vegetables, and fish (range 86.6–99.3%), and a higher intake for saturated fat [88.1% (95% CI 84.1–98.9)]. Furthermore, mean intakes of energy, fiber, fruit, and vegetables were significantly lower in Dutch Food bank recipients than in the DNFCS-all and the DNFCS-low-SES [e.g., daily mean fruit intake (g) Food bank recipients 62.8 (95% CI 45.5–76.5), DNFCS-all 105.8 (95% CI 105.4–117.9), and DNFCS-low-SES 85.1 (95% CI 78.7–100.2)]. Fish intake was significantly lower compared with the DNFCS-all, but not compared with the DNFCS-low-SES. Dutch Food bank recipients, who largely rely on the content of Food parcels, are not able to meet the nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet, and their dietary intake is poorer than the general as well as the low-SES sample of the Dutch adult population. More research is needed on how to improve the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup, by, e.g., revising the content of the Food parcels, and to develop effective intervention activities.
Jesse M. Cunha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Testing Paternalism: Cash versus In-Kind Transfers
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2014Co-Authors: Jesse M. CunhaAbstract:Welfare Programs are often implemented in-kind to promote outcomes that might not be realized under cash transfers. This paper tests whether such paternalistically motivated transfers are justified compared to cash, using a randomized controlled trial of Mexico's Food Assistance Program. In relation to total Food consumption, the in-kind transfer was infra-marginal and nondistorting. However, the transfer contained ten Food items, and there was large variation in the extent to which individual Foods were extra-marginal and distorting. Small differences in the nutritional intake of women and children under in-kind transfers did not lead to meaningful differential improvements in health outcomes compared to cash.
-
Testing Paternalism: Cash vs. In-kind Transfer in Rural Mexico
2010Co-Authors: Jesse M. CunhaAbstract:Welfare Programs are often implemented in-kind to promote outcomes that might not be realized under cash transfers. I use a randomized controlled trial of the Mexican government's Food Assistance Program ('PAL') to test whether this form of paternalism is necessary, comparing precisely measured consumption and health outcomes under both in-kind Food and cash transfers. Importantly, I fnd that households do not indulge in the consumption of vices when handed cash. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the in-kind Food transfer induced more Food to be consumed than did an equal-valued cash transfer. This result is partly explained by the fact that the in-kind transfer was infra-marginal in terms of total Food. However, the PAL in-kind basket contained 10 individual items, and these transfers indeed altered the types of Food consumed for some households. While this distorting effect of in-kind transfers is paternalism's motivation, I fnd that households receiving cash consumed equally nutritious Foods. Finally, there were few differences in child nutritional intakes, and no diferences in child height, weight, sickness, or anemia prevalence. While other justifcations for in-kind transfers may certainly apply, there is minimal evidence supporting the paternalistic one in this context.
S C Dijkstra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
dutch Food bank recipients have poorer dietary intakes than the general and low socioeconomic status dutch adult population
European Journal of Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Judith E. Neter, Marjolein Visser, S C Dijkstra, A L M Dekkers, Marga C Ocke, Ingeborg A. BrouwerAbstract:Food-Assistance Program users are a specific group of nutritional concern, as they are often Food insufficient and have poorer diet quality compared to non-Food-Assistance Program users. The aim of our study was to assess dietary intake of Dutch Food bank recipients (n = 167) and to compare this with dietary intake of a representative sample of the general population (Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS-all): n = 1933), including a low-socioeconomic status (SES) sample (DNFCS-low SES: n = 312), using data from the DNFCS 2007–2010. In this cross-sectional study, 12 Food banks throughout The Netherlands participated. Food bank recipients’ characteristics were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. Dietary intake data were collected through three 24-h recalls. Habitual dietary intake (mean, percentiles, and 95% CI) was estimated for all samples. Differences between samples were determined by comparing the 95% CIs. Mean age of the study population (62.9% female) was 48.6 years (SD:10.1). Mean energy intake was 1986 (95% CI 1830–2089) kcal. The majority of the Dutch Food bank recipients had lower intakes than dietary reference intakes for dietary fiber, fruit, vegetables, and fish (range 86.6–99.3%), and a higher intake for saturated fat [88.1% (95% CI 84.1–98.9)]. Furthermore, mean intakes of energy, fiber, fruit, and vegetables were significantly lower in Dutch Food bank recipients than in the DNFCS-all and the DNFCS-low-SES [e.g., daily mean fruit intake (g) Food bank recipients 62.8 (95% CI 45.5–76.5), DNFCS-all 105.8 (95% CI 105.4–117.9), and DNFCS-low-SES 85.1 (95% CI 78.7–100.2)]. Fish intake was significantly lower compared with the DNFCS-all, but not compared with the DNFCS-low-SES. Dutch Food bank recipients, who largely rely on the content of Food parcels, are not able to meet the nutritional guidelines for a healthy diet, and their dietary intake is poorer than the general as well as the low-SES sample of the Dutch adult population. More research is needed on how to improve the dietary intake of this vulnerable population subgroup, by, e.g., revising the content of the Food parcels, and to develop effective intervention activities.