In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 [Food (in)security and poverty reports indices and indicators referring to food poverty dimensions.] as published [the index “FIES” was missing in the row for “mental” and the column “Food (in)security indices*”]. The corrected Table 2 appears below.
Table 2
| Dimension | Indicators | Description | Food (in)security indices* | Poverty reports indices and indicators** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material food poverty | ||||
| Economic | Food affordability | Food price levels, stability, and shocks, local cost of food required to meet a common energy intake | FAI; GFI; GFSI; UK-FSR | CPI |
| Household-income | Lack of monetary resources to purchase food; share of income spent on food | CARI; FEI; FIES | MD; MSD | |
| Unconventional food income source strategies | Coping strategies to get money for food | CSI; FSS; LCS-FS | ||
| Physical | National availability of food | Food supply, supply disruption, domestic production (export), food import dependence, food loss/waste; available food diversity/quality | Food-EPI; FSI; GFSI; HEI; MLDS | |
| Food environment | Proximity to grocery stores; access to a reliable food/water source | FEI; GFSI; UK-FSR | MDI; MPI | |
| Food distribution | Quality of the road infrastructure | FSI | ||
| Physiological | Malnourishment | Prevalence of undernourishment (stunting, wasting), overnutrition | FSI; GHI; GFI | BMI; MPI |
| Diet quality | Healthy and nutritious food, dietary diversity, adequacy of micronutrient intake, consumption levels | DQI-I; FIES; Food-EPI; FSI; GFI; GFSI; HDDS; HEI; HFIAS | ||
| Food quantity | Consumption of different food groups, situations of hunger | CARI; FCS; HHS | ||
| Diet-related health outcomes | Diabetes, obesity, disability-adjusted-life-years, mortality rates | FSI; GFI; GHI | MPI; SPI | |
| Hygienic | Food safety | Access to safe food and drinking water | GFI; GFSI | MPI; MPM; SPI |
| Social food poverty | ||||
| Social | Social integration | Getting together, eating out | MSD | |
| Communal networks | Coping behaviors (e.g., sending children to eat with neighbors); unconventional food sources (e.g., borrowing food from neighbors) | CARI; CSI; LCS-FS | ||
| Social food access barriers | Gender inequality in household food access, free institutional meals | CSI; FSS; GFSI; UK-FSR | ||
| Cultural | Food customs and practices | Deviant food patterns, dietary change | CARI; CSI; FSS; HFIAS; HHS | FRS; MD; MSD |
| Mental | Worries about food | Uncertainty or concerns about insufficient food procurement | FIES, HFIAS; LCS-FS | FRS |
| Bizarre coping strategies | Illegal income activities (theft, prostitution) due to lack of food, begging or scavenging for food | LCS-FS | ||
Food (in)security and poverty reports indices and indicators referring to food poverty dimensions.
*CARI, consolidated approach for reporting indicators of food security; CSI, coping strategy index; DQI-I, diet quality index-international; FAI, food affordability index; FCS, food consumption score; FEI, food environment index; FIES, food insecurity experience scale; Food-EPI, food environment policy index; FSI, food sustainability index; FSS, food security supplement; GFI, global food index; GFSI, global food security index; GHI, global hunger index; HDDS, household dietary diversity scale; HEI, healthy eating index; HFIAS, household food insecurity access scale; HHS, household hunger scale; LCS-FS, livelihood coping strategies-food security; MLDS, market-level food diversity score; UK-FSR, UK-food security report indicators.
**BMI, body mass index; CPI, consumer price index; FRS, UK family resource survey indicators; MD, material deprivation indicators; MDI, multidimensional deprivation index; MPI, multidimensional poverty index; MPM, multidimensional poverty measure indicators; MSD, material and social deprivation indicators; SPI, social progress index.
In the published article, there was an error in Table 3 [Food (in)security indices with indicators on food poverty dimensions.] as published [a cross was missing in the row for “FIES” and the “Mental” column. Accordingly, the total value of the “mental” column has changed from 2 to 3]. The corrected Table 3 appears below.
Table 3
| Food (in)security indices | Material food poverty | Social food poverty | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Index/ indicator | Name | Economic | Physical | Physiological | Hygienic | Social | Cultural | Mental |
| 1 | CARI | Consolidated approach for reporting indicators of food security | x | x | x | x | |||
| 2 | CSI | Coping strategy index | x | x | x | x | |||
| 3 | DQI-I | Diet quality index-international | x | ||||||
| 4 | FAI | Food affordability index | x | ||||||
| 5 | FCS | Food consumption score | x | ||||||
| 6 | FEI | Food environment index | x | x | |||||
| 7 | FIES | Food insecurity experience scale | x | x | x | ||||
| 8 | Food-EPI | Food environment policy index | x | x | |||||
| 9 | FSI | Food sustainability index | x | x | |||||
| 10 | FSS | Food security supplement | x | x | x | ||||
| 11 | GFI | Global food index | x | x | x | ||||
| 12 | GFSI | Global food security index | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| 13 | GHI | Global hunger index | x | ||||||
| 14 | HDDS | Household dietary diversity scale | x | ||||||
| 15 | HEI | Healthy eating index | x | x | |||||
| 16 | HFIAS | Household food insecurity access scale | x | x | x | ||||
| 17 | HHS | Household hunger scale | x | x | |||||
| 18 | LCS-FS | Livelihood coping strategies-food security | x | x | x | x | |||
| 19 | MLDS | Market-level food diversity score | x | ||||||
| 20 | UK-FSR | United Kingdom food security report 2021: theme 4: food security at household level | x | x | x | ||||
| Σ | 10 | 7 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 3 | ||
Food (in)security indices with indicators on food poverty dimensions.
In the published article, there was an error regarding a reference citation
A correction has been made to 3 Material and methods, “3.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria”. This sentence previously stated:
“To be included in the scoping review, the indices and indicators had to describe at least one aspect that can be assigned to a dimension of food poverty according to 25 concept.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“To be included in the scoping review, the indices and indicators had to describe at least one aspect that can be assigned to a dimension of food poverty according to Feichtinger's (37) concept.”
In the published article, there was an error regarding the numbers stated
A correction has been made to 4 Results, “4.1 Dimensions of food poverty covered by identified indices and indicators”, paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:
“In comparison to social food poverty, which is considered by a total of eight indices, it becomes clear that the focus of the measurement of food (in)security is on the indicators that can predominantly be used to describe the status of material food poverty. Of the eight indices that also have indicators for social food poverty dimensions, six include indicators for the social dimension, five for the cultural dimension, and two for the mental dimension of social food poverty.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In comparison to social food poverty, which is considered by a total of nine indices, it becomes clear that the focus of the measurement of food (in)security is on the indicators that can predominantly be used to describe the status of material food poverty. Of the nine indices that also have indicators for social food poverty dimensions, six include indicators for the social dimension, five for the cultural dimension, and three for the mental dimension of social food poverty.”
In the published article, there was an error regarding the numbers stated.
A correction has been made to 4 Results, “4.2 Social dimensions of food poverty in food (in)security and poverty assessments”, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“In total, five indices could be identified that show references to the social dimension of food poverty.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In total, six indices could be identified that show references to the social dimension of food poverty.”
In the published article, there was an error regarding the numbers stated and some information was missing.
A correction has been made to 4 Results, “4.2 Social dimensions of food poverty in food (in)security and poverty assessments”, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“Furthermore, the mental sub-dimension of social food poverty is only addressed by two indices. The Livelihood Coping Strategies—Food Security Index (LCS-FS) records bizarre coping strategies to obtain food, such as begging for food or prostitution. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) includes the item of worrying about having enough food.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Furthermore, the mental sub-dimension of social food poverty is only addressed by three indices. The Livelihood Coping Strategies—Food Security Index (LCS-FS) records bizarre coping strategies to obtain food, such as begging for food or prostitution. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and FIES include the item of worrying about having enough food.”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
food poverty, food security, food insecurity, social dimensions, indices, indicators
Citation
Bartelmeß T, Jasiok S, Kühnel E and Yildiz J (2024) Corrigendum: A scoping review of the social dimensions in food insecurity and poverty assessments. Front. Public Health 12:1490591. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1490591
Received
03 September 2024
Accepted
26 September 2024
Published
08 October 2024
Volume
12 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Ramadas Sendhil, Pondicherry University, India
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Bartelmeß, Jasiok, Kühnel and Yildiz.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tina Bartelmeß tina.bartelmess@uni-bayreuth.de
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.