This article is a correction to:
A scoping review of the social dimensions in food insecurity and poverty assessments
Tina Bartelmeß
Sarah Jasiok1
Juliane Yildiz- 1Faculty of Life Sciences: Food, Nutrition, and Health, University of Bayreuth, Kulmbach, Germany
- 2Faculty of Law and Economics, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
- 3Faculty of Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
A corrigendum on
A scoping review of the social dimensions in food insecurity and poverty assessments
by Bartelmeß, T., Jasiok, S., Kühnel, E., and Yildiz, J. (2022). Front. Public Health 10:994368. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.994368
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
Table 2. Food (in)security and poverty reports indices and indicators referring to food poverty dimensions.
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
Table 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.
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.
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.
Edited and reviewed by: Ramadas Sendhil, Pondicherry University, India
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