Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Food insecurity among families with infants born during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fortaleza, Northeast Brazil

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition volume 42, Article number: 14 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the prevalence of food insecurity (FI) among families with infants born during the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated factors in Fortaleza, the fifth largest city in Brazil.

Methods

Data from two survey rounds of the Iracema-COVID cohort study collected at 12 (n = 325) and 18 months (n = 331) after birth. FI was measured using the Brazilian Household Food Insecurity Scale. FI levels were described according to potential predictors. Crude and adjusted logistic regressions with robust variance were used to assess factors associated with FI.

Results

In the 12- and 18-month follow-ups interviews, there was a 66.5% and 57.1% prevalence of FI, respectively. Over the study period, 3.5% of the families persisted in severe FI and 27.4% in mild/moderate FI. Households headed by mothers, with more children, low education and income, sustained maternal common mental disorders, and that were beneficiaries of cash transfer programs were the most affected by persistent FI.

Conclusions

Although the prevalence of FI decreased in our sample, almost 60% of families in Fortaleza still have no regular access to enough and/or nutritionally appropriate food. We have identified the groups at higher FI risk, which can guide governmental policies.

Introduction

Food insecurity (FI) is defined as the lack of regular access to enough, safe, and nutritious food necessary for normal growth and development and for having an active and healthy life. It may happen due to the unavailability of food and/or lack of resources to obtain food [13]. Living with FI affects short- and long-term health outcomes. Food insecurity has been associated with a higher risk of poor health, worse emotional well-being, worse school engagement among children, and limitations in activities of daily living among seniors [2, 17]. Living with FI is especially critical for children under the age of two, as it can lead to developmental delays [12].

It is estimated that between 702 and 828 million people faced hunger in 2021 worldwide (corresponding to about 10% of the world population), 46 million more than in 2020, and 150 million more than in 2019, before de the COVID-19 pandemic [14].

Brazil experienced chronic hunger in the 1990s, with over a quarter (27.4%) of the population living below the poverty line, most in the North and Northeast regions [29]. In 2003, Brazil launched two governmental programs that contributed to a decline in hunger, the Zero Hunger Program and the conditional cash transfer Bolsa Família [28, 33, 37]. The percentage of households with FI declined from 44.9% in 2004 to 22.6% in 2013 [19]. This trend, however, suffered a setback in 2015, when an economic crisis started and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) declined by 3.5% [20]. The prevalence of FI increased to 36.7% in 2017–18, with 5% of those facing hunger [19].

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the crisis. Brazil ranks second in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the world [42]. The GDP declined by 4.1% in 2020 [20], and the economic growth in the 2011–2020 decennial was the worst in the last 120 years [3]. The accumulated inflation in 2021 was 11.4% for the lower-income strata compared to 9.3% for those in the highest [23], highlighting the growth in inequities during the period. As for FI, 55.2% and 58.7% faced some form of FI in 2020 and 2021, respectively [34, 35]. In 2020, 19.1 million Brazilians suffered hunger; in 2021, this number increased to 33.1 million [34, 35]. There is a social gradient in FI and hunger, with the highest burden among households whose head is a woman, those with children under 10 years of age, and those that receive some form of cash transfer benefit. There is also a regional gradient. The North region had the highest FI level in 2017–8 (57.0%) followed by the Northeast (50.3%) [19]. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, food insecurity affected over 60% of the households in the North and 70% in the Northeast of Brazil with nearly 7.7 million people facing severe hunger in the Northeast [35].

To the best of our knowledge, few cohort studies evaluated food insecurity in families with infants living in the developing world during the pandemic. Here, we leverage data from a birth cohort study (Iracema-COVID) that followed women in a capital city in the Northeast region (Fortaleza, the fifth largest city in Brazil), who were pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic (including a period of strict lockdown) and delivered in July and August of 2020. Those women faced social, economic, and health challenges that could compromise pregnancy, delivery, maternal health, and child health and development. Our goal is to assess FI, as well as its associated factors, among this population.

Materials and methods

Fortaleza is the capital city of the state of Ceará located in the Northeast region of Brazil, with an estimated population of approximately 2.7 million inhabitants in 2020, and a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.754 in 2010 [21]. Between March 15 and May 5, 2020, the city went through a strict lockdown as a measure to contain the spread of COVID-19. Food insecurity was 46.9% in Ceará in 2018, the eleventh highest in Brazil [22].

A cohort study launched in 2020, called Iracema-COVID [10], that included 351 mother–child dyads, facilitates assessing FI in families with children born during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we used data from two rounds of the Iracema-COVID cohort study. The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee in Brazil (number 73516417.4.0000.5049). Informed verbal consent was obtained from all participants.

Iracema-COVID was designed to evaluate the health status of women who were pregnant during the lockdown period and who delivered in July or August 2020. Four survey rounds have been conducted (at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after birth). Here, we used information from the second (12 months, 92.9% follow-up rate) and third (18 months, 94.6% follow-up rate) rounds. No food security data were collected at 6 months. Twelve trained interviewers contacted the families at each round and performed home interviews. Rounds 2 and 3 were conducted between July and October 2021 and between February and March 2022, respectively. The detailed design of the survey is described elsewhere [10, 26].

The questionnaires applied in rounds 2 and 3 included the Brazilian Household Food Insecurity Measurement Scale (EBIA), a 14-items scale validated to assess FI perception [38, 39]. Each affirmative answer for any of the 14 items is assigned one point and “no” and “do not know” answers get zero points, generating a score ranging from 0 to 14 points. This score enables the estimation of food security (FS) prevalence (0 points) and FI (≥ 1 point), classifying households of children under 18 years of age into three levels of FI severity: mild (1–5 points), moderate (6–9 points), and severe (10–4 points). We analyzed the prevalence of FS and FI in each survey round, as well as transitions across rounds.

Possible factors associated with FI were identified through a review of the current literature [25, 30] and are described in Additional file 1: Table S1. Socioeconomic status was assessed based on the Brazilian Economic Classification Criteria (CCEB) [1]. The index is summarized into five socioeconomic strata: A (monthly income of US$ 4,049.49), B1 (US$ 1,922.35), B2 (US$ 1,067.76), C1 (US$ 607.93), C2 (US$ 364.73), and D/E (US$ 167.09) (monthly income shown in US dollars calculated using the exchange rate of July 5, 2022, 1 U.S. dollar = 5.39 Brazilian Reais) [1]. Maternal working arrangements were classified into informal and formal according to Brazilian legislation [5]. Maternal common mental disorders (CMD) were assessed by the Self Report Questionnaire (SRQ-20), a 20-item self-report screening tool developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) aimed to detect psychological distress [4]. The SRQ-20 was validated for application to the Brazilian population using a cut-off point of eight or more as an indicator of morbidity with an 83% sensitivity and 80% specificity [27]. Breastfeeding (BF) patterns at 6 months were categorized as exclusive or predominant, complementary, and bottle feeding [15], World Health Organization [41].

We summarized descriptive data on household, maternal, and child characteristics from both survey rounds. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between rounds according to the outcome and exposure variables. We described FS and FI levels according to selected predictor variables collected 12 and 18 months after birth. Odds ratios (OR), and their respective 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI), of the association between FI and the selected predictors in each round, were estimated using crude and adjusted logistic regressions with robust variance. The final multivariable models were selected based on the Log-likelihood and the Akaike information criterion (AIC). The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test with a cut-off point of 10 was used to assess multicollinearity and determine variables’ permanence in the model.

For the food security and insecurity variation between 12 and 18 months, five categories were created by grouping the families according to their FI status on both survey rounds classified as: Food Secure—remained FS in both survey rounds; Became Food Secure—were FI at 12 month and FS at 18 months; Became Food Insecure—were FS at 12 month and FI at 18 months, Sustained Food Insecurity—mild and moderate FI on both rounds; and Sustained severe Food Insecurity—severe FI on both rounds. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the association between FI variation and the exposure variables.

Statistical analyses were performed in STATA version 16.1 (StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP).

Results

The analysis included data from 325 families followed up in round 2 and 331 families in round 3. FI was observed in 33.5% of the households in round 2, and in 42.9% in round 3. Severe FI, or hunger, was reported in 6.1% and 5.4% of the households in rounds 2 and 3, respectively. In 2022, an increase in the reported family’s monthly income was observed. While in 2021 40% of the sample earned one minimum wage (MW) or less, in 2022 this figure dropped to 24.5% (p < 0.001). The number of participants of cash transfer programs increased from 44.0% (2021) to 55.6% (2022) (p = 0.003) (Table 1). In 2021, 22.5% of the participants received the Bolsa Familia cash transfer (renamed as Auxílio Brasil on December 29, 2021 [6]) while 22.8% received the COVID-19 emergency cash transfer. In 2022, 52.6% of the families were beneficiaries of Auxílio Brasil and the COVID-19 emergency program had already ended (Data not shown). Other characteristics were similar between the two survey rounds (Table 1).

Table 1 Sample description according to household, maternal, and child characteristics 12 (n = 325) and 18 months (n = 331) after birth in a cohort of children born in Fortaleza during the COVID-19 pandemic
Full size table

Characteristics of the households facing FI were similar across survey rounds (Additional file 1: Table S2). Specifically, large households, with more children and adolescents, of low socioeconomic status, headed by women with lower education, that receive cash transfers, with mothers that presented CMD and with a history of smoking were associated with higher FI levels.

Figure 1 shows multivariable associations between FI and the selected predictors (Additional file 1: Table S3 shows the crude and adjusted OR and 95% CI). At 12-month follow-up, households whose heads had more years of formal education (8–11 years—OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33; 1.18, and 12 or more years—OR: 0.15, 95% CI 0.05; 0.47) and higher family monthly income (1–2.9 minimum wages (MW)—OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23; 0.76, and 3 or more MW—OR: 0.12, 95% CI 0.12; 0.37) had fewer odds of facing food insecurity compared to those in the least favored categories. Families that experienced a maternal income reduction due to the pandemic had almost three times higher odds of FI (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.35; 5.40) compared to families with no income reduction. Complementary (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.28; 3.93) and exclusive or predominantly breastfeeding (OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.81; 9.84) were also associated with higher odds of FI. Eighteen months after delivering a baby during the pandemic, families that received cash transfers (OR 2.17 95% CI 1.27; 3.70) had twice the chance of being in FI, while higher family income was associated to lower odds of FI (1–2.9 MW—OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23; 0.88, and 3 or more MW—OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03; 0.25).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Multivariable association of FI, 12 and 18 months after birth, and potential risk factors in families with children born during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. Note Variables displayed in the figure are those included in the final multivariable model (Additional file 1: Table S3). The reference groups are: 1 underage resident; father as the head of the household; under 8 years of formal education; less than 1 Minimum Wage (MW) of family monthly income; no family income reduction due to the pandemic; do not receive cash transfer programs; no maternal income reduction due to the pandemic; no alcohol consumption; no Common Mental Disorders (CMD); no breastfeeding (BF)

Full size image

Between the two survey rounds, 24% of the households with FS became food insecure (mild). Of those that had been classified with mild FI at 12 months, 34.9% improved their status, 52.7% remained in the same category, and 12.3% were at more severe FI at 18 months (8.2% with moderate and 4.1% with severe FI). For households that had moderate food insecurity, 77.3% improved their status with 68.2% going to mild FI and 9.1% becoming FS. Half of the households that were severely FI at the 12-month follow-up remained in that category at 18 months, none became FS, and 20% and 25% improved to moderate and mild FI, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 Transitions in food insecurity between the second and third survey rounds of the Iracema-COVID cohort, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil
Full size table

Household characteristics associated with sustained FI on both survey rounds include the head being the mother (p = 0.004), cash transfer benefits (Bolsa Familia or Auxilio Brasil) (p < 0.001), an increase in income between rounds (p = 0.050), and a larger number of children (p = 0.002). Maternal characteristics associated with persistent FI include smoking (p < 0.001) and CMD (p = 0.004) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Food security and insecurity variation between the 12- and 18-months survey rounds according to predictor variables. Note: FS -Food secure, FI—Food insecure. SRQ + equals to Self-Report Questionnaire score of 8 or more points. p-values of the association of FI variation and the predictors between survey rounds: a < 0.001; b = 0.004; c = 0.004; d < 0.001; e = 0.005; f = 0.002

Full size image

Discussion

This study analyzed the prevalence of FI in a cohort of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fortaleza who were followed up at 12 and 18 months after birth. At 12 months, we found 38 to 85% higher odds of FI in households whose head had fewer years of education and 2.3 times higher when it was a woman, had lower income (over 65%), whose mother faced income reduction during the pandemic (2.7 times), and practiced any type of breastfeeding (2.2 times higher when complementary and 4.2 times when had exclusively breastfed). At 18 months, factors that contributed to increase the odds of FI were lower family income, households that received cash transfer programs, and those whose mothers presented CMD. Households that faced FI at both survey rounds (n = 155) had more than one child or adolescent in the house, a higher prevalence of maternal smoking and maternal CMD, and received cash transfers (Bolsa Familia or Auxilio Brasil).

In 2013, 35.5% of the population in Ceará faced FI [18], increasing to almost half of the population (46.9%) in 2017–18 [22]. Recently, between 2017 and 2020, the state saw a 15% increase in FI [36]. Our results are consistent with that increasing trend.

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the income and work conditions of the population in Brazil. In the Northeast, over 20% of the population reported having lost their jobs (20.4%), and over half had an income reduction (53.4%) due to the COVID-19 pandemic [35]. FI increase during the COVID-19 pandemic was observed globally; in 2020, moderate and severe FI had an increase equal to the previous 5 years combined and a noted increase in undernourishment [3]. In the United States, FI prevalence was 32.2% higher during the COVID-19 pandemic going from 18.8% before (in 2018) and 24.8% during (in 2020) the pandemic [32]. The effect of COVID-19 on FI levels could be associated with the disruption caused in food supply and availability due to unfavorable conditions for food production caused by the pandemic [40], but also with increased poverty due to disruption in the labor market.

Our findings show households headed by women have higher FI prevalence, even after adjusting for family income. Recent data collected in Brazil support our findings, with a higher prevalence of FI in households headed by women (11.2% and 19.3% in 2020 and 2021–22, respectively) compared to those headed by men (7.0% and 11.9% in 2020 and 2021–22, respectively) [34, 35]. Female-headed households are often associated with lower socioeconomic levels and single-parent households which would mean fewer income sources in the house [7].

In January 2019, when the 2019–2022 Brazilian government took term, the National Council for Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA) was extinguished [9]. This drastically reduced efforts initiated in 2003 with the Zero Hunger program, which contributed to the decline in food insecurity that Brazil observed between 2000 and 2014. Although the conditional cash transfer was maintained, it was associated with higher FI in the 18-month follow-up. This is the opposite of a survey conducted in Ceará in 2007–8 that reported two times higher FS among families that received governmental aid [11]. Our results, however, reflect a scenario of severe social and sanitary consequences of COVID-19 that led to an increase in poverty. In Ceará it is estimated that 45.9% the population was living in poverty in 2021 (3.73 percentage points higher than in 2019) [31].

The increase in poverty was observed even though Brazil provided a COVID-19 emergency aid of about $112 (600 Brazilian Reais), launched in April, 2020. In 2020, 6.2% of households in Brazil lived exclusively on the COVID-19 emergency aid, and in low-income families the emergency aid covered 103% of the expected income had the pandemic not happened [8]. The emergency aid, however, ended in December 2020, and reinstated in April of 2021 with a reduced value of about $55 (300 Brazilian Reais), and ended in November. From January to April 2021, the worst moment of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, no emergency aid was available.

In the 12-month survey round, 22.8% of the sample received the COVID-19 emergency aid, which represented 51.7% of all governmental transfer received by the participants of the Iracema-COVID. After the program’s closure, there was an increase in the proportion of Bolsa Familia beneficiaries (47.9% and 69.4% new recipients among the emergency aid non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries, respectively). Being in sustained severe FI was associated with receiving governmental cash transfers, and larger households with more underage residents. Bolsa Familia and the Emergency aid transfers to families (400 and 600 Brazilian Reais—about US$75 and US$ 112, respectively) have different purchasing power depending on families’ characteristics (e.g., female headed) and were possibly not enough to remove some families from a FI situation [24].

Compared to pre-pandemic data, there was an increase in the proportion of mothers that exclusively and predominantly breastfed their babies until the recommended 6 months of life [15]. Also, continuing to breastfeed the child after food introduction was positively associated with higher proportions of FI in our sample. These results suggest that mothers could have delayed solid food introduction and weaning considering the lower food availability in the households and thus assuring their infant would be fed and receive the minimum amount of energy and nutrients [16].

This study has some limitations. Our results are representative of a group of families with infants born during the COVID-19 pandemic in the fifth largest city in Brazil. They are representative of large urban areas in the country but cannot be generalized to other contexts.

Conclusions

A decrease in FI was observed between 12 and 18 months after birth in families with children born during the COVID-19 pandemic. FI was more prevalent among households with lower socioeconomic level (income and education), and headed by mothers that became unemployed or suffered an income reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the prevalence of FI decreased in our sample, national data show that there is still a growing number of families with no regular access to enough and/or nutritionally appropriate food, being the Northeast region one of the most affected. We have identified the groups at higher FI risk that can be a reference to governmental policies.

Availability of data and materials

Data available upon request.

References

  1. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (ABEP). Critério de classificação econômica Brasil. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa; 2021. https://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil

  2. Ashiabi G. Household food insecurity and children’s school engagement. J Child Poverty. 2005;11(1):3–17. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/1079612042000333027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balassiano M. Década cada vez mais perdida na economia brasileira e comparações internacionais; 2020. https://portal.fgv.br/artigos/decada-cada-vez-mais-perdida-economia-brasileira-e-comparacoes-internacionais#_ftn3

  4. Beusenberg M, Orley JH, World Health Organization. Division of Mental H. A User's guide to the self reporting questionnaire SRQ/compiled by M. Beusenberg and J. Orley. In. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.

  5. BRASIL. Decreto-Lei 5.452 de 1° de maio de 1943. In Consolidação das Leis do trabalho; 2017.

  6. BRASIL. Lei nº 14.284, de 29 de dezembro de 2021. In Programa Auxilio Brasil; 2021.

  7. Buvinić M, Gupta G. Female-headed households and female-maintained families: are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Econ Dev Cult Change. 1997;45(2):259–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carvalho S. Os efeitos da pandemia sobre os rendimentos do trabalho e o impacto do auxílio emergencial: os resultados dos microdados da PNAD Covid-19 de agosto. Carta Conjunt (Inst Pesqui Econ Apl). 2020;48:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Castro IRRD. A extinção do Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional e a agenda de alimentação e nutrição. Cad Saude Publica. 2019. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/0102-311x00009919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Castro MC, Farías-Antúnez S, Araújo DABS, Penna AL, Oliveira FA, de Aquino CM, Lima Neto AS, de Sousa GS, Tavares Machado MM. Cohort profile: maternal and child health and parenting practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ceará, Brazil: birth cohort study (Iracema-COVID). BMJ Open. 2022;12(6):e060824. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Correia LL, Rocha HAL, Leite AJM, Cavalcante e Silva A, Campos JS, Machado MMT, Lindsay AC, Cunha AJLAD. The relation of cash transfer programs and food insecurity among families with preschool children living in semiarid climates in Brazil. Cadernos Saúde Coletiva. 2018;26(1):53–62. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/1414-462x201800010341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Oliveira KH, Buccini G, Hernandez DC, Pérez-Escamilla R, Gubert MB. Household food insecurity and early childhood development in Brazil: an analysis of children under 2 years of age. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(11):3286–93. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1017/S1368980021002305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). State food agriculture food aid food security. In: Glossary on right to food; 2009. pp. 32.

  14. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF—the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, WFP—World Food Programme &WHO—World Health Organizarion. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. In FAO; 2022.

  15. Farías-Antúnez S, Correia LL, Araújo DABS, Penna AL, de Sousa GDS, Silva ACE, Campos JS, Rocha HAL, de Aquino CM, Castro MC, Tavares Machado MM. Breastfeeding practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fortaleza Northeastern Brazil. J Hum Lact. 2022. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/08903344221101874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gomes GP, Gubert MB. Breastfeeding in children under 2 years old and household food and nutrition security status. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2012;88(3):279–82. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2223/JPED.2173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gundersen C, Ziliak JP. Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(11):1830–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílio (PNAD): segurança alimentar 2013. In. IBGE; 2014.

  19. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares 2017–2018: análise da segurança alimentar no Brasil. In IBGE: Coordenação de trabalho e rendimento; 2020a.

  20. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE). Contas Nacionais; 2020b. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/contas-nacionais/9088-produto-interno-bruto-dos-municipios.html?=&t=resultados.

  21. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Estimativa populacional de 2020; 2020c. https://www.ibge.gov.br/cidades-e-estados/ce/fortaleza.html

  22. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares 2017–2018. Tabelas: Análise da segurança alimentar no Brasil. Situação de segurança alimentar, segundo as Unidades da Federação; 2020d. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/saude/24786-pesquisa-de-orcamentos-familiares-2.html?edicao=28708&t=resultados.

  23. Instituto de Pesquisa e Estatística Aplicada (IPEA). Brasil em desenvolvimento: estado, planejamento e políticas públicas. In IBGE: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2021

  24. Levy S, Menezes Filho N. Evaluating the impact of the COVID Emergency Aid Transfers on female labor supply in Brazil. In INSPER, Policy Paper 58; 2021.

  25. Lignani JB, Palmeira PA, Antunes MML, Salles-Costa R. Relationship between social indicators and food insecurity: a systematic review. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2020;23:e200068. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/1980-549720200068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Machado MMT, Rocha HAL, Castro MC, Sampaio EGM, Oliveira FA, Silva JPFD, de Aquino CM, de Souza LAR, Carvalho FHC, Altafim ERP, Correia LL. COVID-19 and mental health of pregnant women in Ceará, Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2021;55:37. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055003225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Mari JJ, Williams P. A validity study of a psychiatric screening questionnaire (SRQ-20) in primary care in the city of Sao Paulo. Br J Psychiatry. 1986;148:23–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1192/bjp.148.1.23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social e Agrário. Bolsa Família; 2013. http://mds.gov.br/assuntos/bolsaKfamilia

  29. Monteiro CA. A dimensão da pobreza, da desnutrição e da fome no Brasil. Estudos Avançados. 2003;17(48):7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morais DDC, Dutra LV, Franceschini SDCC, Priore SE. Insegurança alimentar e indicadores antropométricos, dietéticos e sociais em estudos brasileiros: uma revisão sistemática. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2014;19(5):1475–88. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/1413-81232014195.13012013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neri M. Mapa da Nova Pobreza. In FGV Social; 2022.

  32. Niles MT, Bertmann F, Belarmino EH, Wentworth T, Biehl E, Neff R. The early food insecurity impacts of COVID-19. Nutrients. 2020. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nu12072096.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Paraizo MA. Notas sobre as particularidades políticas do governo Lula. Tematicas. 2019;27(53):17–38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.20396/tematicas.v27i53.11601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar (PENSSAN). II VIGISAN. Inquérito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no Contexto da Pandemia da Covid-19 no Brasil; 2022.

  35. Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (PENSSAN). VIGISAN. Inquerito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no contexto da Pandemia de COVID-19 no Brasil; 2021.

  36. Rocha HA, Sudfeld CR, Leite Á, Rocha SG, Machado MM, Campos JS, Silva AC, Correia LL. Coronavirus disease 2019, food security and maternal mental health in Ceará, Brazil: a repeated cross-sectional survey. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(7):1836–40. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1017/S1368980021000628.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Santos RD, Bottega CG. ‘Saco vazio não para em pé’: Programa Bolsa Família e mortalidade por desnutrição. Saúde em Debate. 2019;43(122):863–74. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/0103-1104201912216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Segall-Corrêa A, Pérez-Escamilla R, Maranha L, Sampaio M. (In) Segurança alimentar no Brasil: validação de metodologia para acompanhamento e avaliação. Relatório Técnico. Campinas (SP); 2004. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/vru_unic.pdf

  39. Segall-Corrêa AM, Marin-León L, Melgar-Quiñonez H, Pérez-Escamilla R. Refinement of the Brazilian household food insecurity measurement scale: recommendation for a 14-item EBIA. Rev Nutr. 2014;27(2):241–51. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1590/1415-52732014000200010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Udmale P, Pal I, Szabo S, Pramanik M, Large A. Global food security in the context of COVID-19: a scenario-based exploratory analysis. Prog Disaster Sci. 2020;7:100120. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guidelines approved by the guidelines review committee in infant and young child feeding: model chapter for textbooks for medical students and allied health professionals. World Health Organization; 2009

  42. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2022. https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed 8 Feb.

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

Iracema-COVID was funded by Fundação Maria Cecilia Souto Vidigal, and by the Medical School of the Federal University of Ceará. SFA received support from the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Science, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 3201 Governador Jorge Lacerda Street, Araranguá, SC, 88906-072, Brazil

    Simone Farías-Antúnez

  2. Department of Community Health, Federal University of Ceará, 1223 Papi Junior Street, Fortaleza, CE, 60430-235, Brazil

    Márcia Maria Tavares Machado, Luciano Lima Correia, Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha, David Augusto Batista Sá Araújo & Maria Suelly Nogueira Pinheiro

  3. Department of Maternal and Child Health, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil

    Camila Machado Aquino

  4. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Ana Luiza Penna & Marcia C. Castro

Authors
  1. Simone Farías-Antúnez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Márcia Maria Tavares Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luciano Lima Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Augusto Batista Sá Araújo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Suelly Nogueira Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Camila Machado Aquino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ana Luiza Penna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marcia C. Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Designed Iracema-COVID and planned the study design: MMTM and MCC. Data analysis and interpretation: SFA, MCC, MMTM, and DABSA. Drafted the manuscript: SFA and MCC. Data curation: MCC, MMTM, SFA, DABSA, LLC, HALR, MSNP, and ALP. All authors contributed to the manuscript’s review and have approved its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Márcia Maria Tavares Machado.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the National Research Ethics Committee in Brazil (Number 73516417.4.0000.5049). Informed verbal consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary Tables.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farías-Antúnez, S., Machado, M.M.T., Correia, L.L. et al. Food insecurity among families with infants born during the COVID-19 pandemic in Fortaleza, Northeast Brazil. J Health Popul Nutr 42, 14 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s41043-023-00354-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s41043-023-00354-w

Keywords

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition

ISSN: 2072-1315

Contact us