Public Health · 4 h ago
Food Insecurity Rose Among LGBTQ+ Adults in Massachusetts From 2022 to 2024
A repeated cross-sectional survey of 9,174 Massachusetts adults found that food insecurity among LGBTQ+ respondents rose from 43.7% in 2022 to 54.9% in 2024. Food pantry and SNAP use remained stable in this group, while respondents reported substantial barriers to assistance.
- Food insecurity affected 54.9% of LGBTQ+ respondents in 2024.
- Food pantry and SNAP use remained stable among LGBTQ+ adults.
- Self-reliance, embarrassment, and privacy concerns were common pantry access barriers.
- Suggested access strategies were not evaluated as interventions.
A repeated cross-sectional study published in JAMA Network Open examined food insecurity, food assistance use, and access barriers among 9,174 Massachusetts adults surveyed from 2022 to 2024. The annual online Massachusetts Statewide Food Access Survey assessed food insecurity using the 10-item US Department of Agriculture module. LGBTQ+ adults represented 10.4%–12.8% of respondents across survey years.
Food insecurity increased significantly among LGBTQ+ adults, from 43.7% in 2022 to 54.9% in 2024, and among non-LGBTQ+ adults, from 29.8% to 33.3%. Food pantry and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) use among LGBTQ+ adults remained stable. Among LGBTQ+ pantry nonusers in 2024, common barriers included wanting to be self-reliant (49.4%), embarrassment (37.4%), and fear of being identified as a pantry user (35.6%). These barriers increased over time and were more common than among non-LGBTQ+ adults.
Reported SNAP barriers included self-reliance (52.7%), concern about taking benefits from someone with greater need (44.6%), and not knowing how to apply (26.0%). LGBTQ+ respondents endorsed grocery gift cards, home delivery, and online ordering as potential ways to increase pantry use.
The findings highlight unmet food needs and access barriers relevant to clinicians connecting patients with assistance. However, the repeated cross-sectional design cannot establish causality or individual trajectories, and findings from a Massachusetts online survey may not generalize elsewhere. The proposed access strategies were preferences, not tested interventions.
Is this summary clinically accurate?
Help fellow clinicians: your rating sends inaccurate summaries straight to our editors.
Sign in to rate this summary →Source
JAMA Network Open: LGBTQ+ Disparities in Food Insecurity, Food Assistance Use, and Barriers to Food Assistance ↗This is an automated AI-condensed summary that has not yet been reviewed by an editor. Always consult the full item at the original source.