↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Food Banks in Addressing Food Insecurity: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
251 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
503 Mendeley
Title
The Role of Food Banks in Addressing Food Insecurity: A Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Community Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10900-015-0147-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chantelle Bazerghi, Fiona H. McKay, Matthew Dunn

Abstract

Food banks play a major role in the food aid sector by distributing donated and purchased groceries directly to food insecure families. The public health implications of food insecurity are significant, particularly as food insecurity has a higher prevalence among certain population groups. This review consolidates current knowledge about the function and efficacy of food banks to address food insecurity. A systematic review was conducted. Thirty-five publications were reviewed, of which 14 examined food security status, 13 analysed nutritional quality of food provided, and 24 considered clients' needs in relation to food bank use. This review found that while food banks have an important role to play in providing immediate solutions to severe food deprivation, they are limited in their capacity to improve overall food security outcomes due to the limited provision of nutrient-dense foods in insufficient amounts, especially from dairy, vegetables and fruits. Food banks have the potential to improve food security outcomes when operational resources are adequate, provisions of perishable food groups are available, and client needs are identified and addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 503 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 502 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 87 17%
Student > Bachelor 57 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 9%
Researcher 28 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 80 16%
Unknown 180 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 81 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 19 4%
Other 87 17%
Unknown 211 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,156,532
of 25,286,324 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#76
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,068
of 406,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,286,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.