A positive association between food insecurity and the prevalence of overactive bladder in U.S. adults

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the correlation between overactive bladder (OAB) and food insecurity.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis utilizing extensive population data derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2018. The status of Household food insecurity is evaluated by the US Food Security Survey Module. To explore the relationship between food insecurity and OAB, three multivariable logistic regression models were carried out. Additionally, interaction and stratified analyses were also performed to find whether some factors have the potential to alter the correlation.ResultsThere were 29,129 participants enrolled in the study. Compared to the other three groups, individuals with full food security exhibited a lower proportion of nocturia, urinary urgency incontinence, and OAB. In the fully-adjusted model, it was found that people experiencing food insecurity have a significantly higher prevalence of OAB compared to those with food security in the fully-adjusted model (OR = 1.540, 95%CI 1.359–1.745). Additionally, there was a significant association between the levels of food insecurity and an increased risk of OAB prevalence was also observed (marginal food security: OR = 1.312, low food security: OR = 1.559, and very low food security: OR = 1.759). No significant interaction was seen in the fully-adjusted model.ConclusionThere is a strong positive correlation between food insecurity and the prevalence of OAB. Similarly, the correlation between levels of food insecurity and OAB also indicates the same trend. Namely, the more insecure food, the higher risk of OAB prevalence in the population.

Impact of food insecurity on cognitive health in older adults: insights from the NHANES 2011–2014 data

“…The NHANES documentation outlines the classification of food security status based on the count of affirmative responses in the adult module: zero affirmatives indicate full food security, one to two suggest marginal food security, three to five signify low food security, and six to ten affirmatives represent very low food security. Aligning with established research, the study aggregated the categories of full and marginal food security into a single “food security” group, and combined the low and very low categories into a “food insecurity” group ( 22 ).…”