Household food expenditure and its contribution to socioeconomic inequalities in purchasing foods consistent with Australian dietary guideline recommendations

Aim: To examine the amount of money spent on food by household income, and to ascertain whether food expenditure mediates the relationship between household income and the purchase of staple foods consistent with Australian dietary guideline recommendations. ----- ----- Methods: In face-to-face interviews (n = 1003, 66.4% response rate), households in Brisbane, Australia were asked about their purchasing choices for a range of staple foods, including grocery items, fruits and vegetables. For each participant, information was obtained about their total weekly household food expenditure, along with their sociodemographic and household characteristics. ----- ----- Results: Household income was significantly associated with food expenditure; participants residing in higher-income households spent more money on food per household member than those from lower-income households. Lower income households were less likely to make food purchasing choices of dietary staples that were consistent with recommendations. However, food expenditure did not attenuate the relationship between household income and the purchase of staple foods consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. ----- ----- Conclusions: The findings suggest that food expenditure may not contribute to income inequalities in purchasing staple foods consistent with dietary guideline recommendations: instead, other material or psychosocial factors not considered in the current study may be more important determinants of these inequalities. Further research should examine whether expenditure on non-staple items and takeaway foods is a larger contributor to socioeconomic inequalities in dietary behavior.

A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults

This Review examined socioeconomic inequalities in intakes of dietary factors associated with weight gain, overweight/obesity among adults in Europe. Literature searches of studies published between 1990 and 2007 examining socioeconomic position (SEP) and the consumption of energy, fat, fibre, fruit, vegetables, energy-rich drinks and meal patterns were conducted. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The direction of associations between SEP and energy intakes were inconsistent. Approximately half the associations examined between SEP and fat intakes showed higher total fat intakes among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. There was some evidence that these groups consume a diet lower in fibre. The most consistent evidence of dietary inequalities was for fruit and vegetable consumption; lower socioeconomic groups were less likely to consume fruit and vegetables. Differences in energy, fat and fibre intakes (when found) were small-to-moderate in magnitude; however, differences were moderate-to-large for fruit and vegetable intakes. Socioeconomic inequalities in the consumption of energy-rich drinks and meal patterns were relatively under-studied compared with other dietary factors. There were no regional or gender differences in the direction and magnitude of the inequalities in the dietary factors examined. The findings suggest that dietary behaviours may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in overweight/obesity in Europe. However, there is only consistent evidence that fruit and vegetables may make an important contribution to inequalities in weight status across European regions.

Socioeconomic inequalities in weight status among mid-aged adults : the contribution of perceptions of weight status and weight-control behaviours

Background Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults in developed countries experience a higher prevalence of a number of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and some forms of cancer. Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for these diseases. Lower socioeconomic groups have a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity and this may contribute to their higher morbidity and mortality. International studies suggest that socioeconomic groups may differ in their self-perceptions of weight status and their engagement in weightcontrol behaviours (WCBs). Research has shown that lower socioeconomic adults are more likely to underestimate their weight status, and are less likely to engage in WCBs. This may contribute (in part) to the marked inequalities in weight status observed at the population level. There are few, and somewhat limited, Australian studies that have examined the types of weight-control strategies people adopt, the barriers to their weight control, the determinants of their perceived weight status and WCBs. Furthermore, there are no known Australian studies that have examined socioeconomic differences in these factors to better understand the reasons for socioeconomic inequalities in weight status. Hence, the overall aim of this Thesis is to examine why socioeconomically-disadvantaged group experience a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity than their more-advantaged counterparts. Methods This Thesis used data from two sources. Men and women aged 45 to 60 years were examined from both data source. First, the longitudinal Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study were used to advance our knowledge and understanding of socioeconomic differences in weight change, perceived weight status and WCBs. A total of 2753 participants with measured weights at both baseline (1999-2000) and follow-up (2004-2005) were included in the analyses. Percent weight change over the five-year interval was calculated and perceived weight status, WCBs and highest attained education were collected at baseline. Second, the Candidate conducted a postal questionnaire from 1013 Brisbane residents (69.8 % response rate) to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic position, determinants of perceived weight status, WCBs, and barriers and reasons to weight control. A test-retest reliability study was conducted to determine the reliability of the new measures used in the questionnaire. Most new measures had substantial to almost perfect reliability when considering either kappa coefficient or crude agreement. Results The findings from the AusDiab Study (accepted for publication in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health) showed that low-educated men and women were more likely to be obese at baseline compared to their higheducated respondents (O.R. = 1.97, 95 % C.I. = 1.30-2.98 and O.R. = 1.52, 95 % C.I. = 1.03-2.25, respectively). Over the five year follow-up period (1999-2000 to 2004- 05) there were no socioeconomic differences in weight change among men, however socioeconomically-disadvantaged women had greater weight gains. Participants perceiving themselves as overweight gained less weight than those who saw themselves as underweight or normal weight. There was no relationship between engaging in WCBs and five-year weight change. The postal questionnaire data showed that socioeconomically-disadvantaged groups were less likely to engage in WCBs. If they did engage in weight control, they were less likely to adopt exercise strategies, including moderate and vigorous physical activities but were more likely to decrease their sitting time to control their weight. Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults reported more barriers to weight control; such as perceiving weight loss as expensive, requiring a lot of cooking skills, not being a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. These results have been accepted for publication in Public Health Nutrition. The third manuscript (under review in Social Science and Medicine) examined socioeconomic differences in determinants of perceived weight status and reasons for weight control. The results showed that lower socioeconomic adults were more likely to specify the following reasons for weight control: they considered themselves to be too heavy, for occupational requirements, on recommendation from their doctor, family members or friends. Conversely, high-income adults were more likely to report weight control to improve their physical condition or to look more attractive compared with those on lower-incomes. There were few socioeconomic differences in the determinants of perceived weight status. Conclusions Education inequalities in overweight/obesity among men and women may be due to mis-perceptions of weight status; overweight or obese individuals in loweducated groups may not perceive their weight as problematic and therefore may not pay attention to their energy-balance behaviours. Socioeconomic groups differ in WCBs, and their reasons and perceived barriers to weight control. Health promotion programs should encourage weight control among lower socioeconomic groups. More specifically, they should encourage the engagement of physical activity or exercise and dietary strategies among disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, such programs should address potential barriers for weight control that disadvantaged groups may encounter. For example, disadvantaged groups perceive that weight control is expensive, requires cooking skills, not a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. Lastly, health promotion programs and policies aimed at reducing overweight and obesity should be tailored to the different reasons and motivations to weight control experienced by different socioeconomic groups. Weight-control interventions targeted at higher socioeconomic groups should use improving physical condition and attractiveness as motivational goals; while, utilising social support may be more effective for encouraging weight control among lower socioeconomic groups.

Does food insecurity contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in BMI?

Introduction: Food insecurity is a social determinant of health and is defined as limited ability to access sufficient amounts of nutritionally adequate or safe food for a healthy and active life. Food insecurity is associated with poor health status and the exacerbation of other health inequalities. This study examined whether an association existed between 1) socioeconomic position (SEP) and food insecurity and 2) food insecurity and weight status. Methods: Data from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey was analysed. A random sample of households (n = 13 858) were asked about dietary habits and food choices. Information about gender, age, BMI, waist circumference, household income and whether the household had run out of money to purchase food in the previous 12 months was obtained and analysed using chi-square and logistic regression. Results: Income was significantly associated with food insecurity; households with lower income were at higher risk of food insecurity. Lower income males were nine times more likely to experience food insecurity and lower income females were three times more likely to experience food insecurity than their higher income counterparts. Food insecurity was significantly associated with body mass index (BMI) among women but not men. Women experiencing food insecurity were at higher risk of overweight/obesity according to BMI and waist circumference measures. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that low income households are at higher risk of food insecurity and women who are food insecure are at higher risk of being overweight or obese. Food insecurity may mediate the association between SEP and BMI.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cardiovascular mortality and the role of childhood socioeconomic conditions and adulthood risk factors : a prospective cohort study with 17-years of follow up

Background The mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in mortality from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are largely unknown. We studied the contribution of childhood socioeconomic conditions and adulthood risk factors to inequalities in CVD mortality in adulthood. Methods The prospective GLOBE study was carried out in the Netherlands, with baseline data from 1991, and linked with the cause of death register in 2007. At baseline, participants reported on adulthood socioeconomic position (SEP) (own educational level), childhood socioeconomic conditions (occupational level of respondent’s father), and a broad range of adulthood risk factors (health behaviours, material circumstances, psychosocial factors). This present study is based on 5,395 men and 6,306 women, and the data were analysed using Cox regression models and hazard ratios (HR). Results A low adulthood SEP was associated with increased CVD mortality for men (HR 1.84; 95% CI: 1.41-2.39) and women (HR 1.80; 95%CI: 1.04-3.10). Those with poorer childhood socioeconomic conditions were more likely to die from CVD in adulthood, but this reached statistical significance only among men with the poorest childhood socioeconomic circumstances. About half of the investigated adulthood risk factors showed significant associations with CVD mortality among both men and women, namely renting a house, experiencing financial problems, smoking, physical activity and marital status. Alcohol consumption and BMI showed a U-shaped relationship with CVD mortality among women, with the risk being significantly greater for both abstainers and heavy drinkers, and among women who were underweight or obese. Among men, being single or divorced and using sleep/anxiety drugs increased the risk of CVD mortality. In explanatory models, the largest contributor to adulthood CVD inequalities were material conditions for men (42%; 95% CI: −73 to −20) and behavioural factors for women (55%; 95% CI: -191 to −28). Simultaneous adjustment for adulthood risk factors and childhood socioeconomic conditions attenuated the HR for the lowest adulthood SEP to 1.34 (95% CI: 0.99-1.82) for men and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.65-2.15) for women. Conclusions Adulthood material, behavioural and psychosocial factors played a major role in the explanation of adulthood SEP inequalities in CVD mortality. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances made a modest contribution, mainly via their association with adulthood risk factors. Policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities are likely to be most effective when considering the influence of socioeconomic circumstances across the entire life course and in particular, poor material conditions and unhealthy behaviours in adulthood.

Reported consumption of takeaway food and its contribution to socioeconomic inequalities in body mass index

The aim of this study was to examine whether takeaway food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and body mass index (BMI). A postal-survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged between 25 and 64 years in Brisbane, Australia during 2009 (response rate 63.7%, N=903). BMI was calculated using self-reported weight and height. Participants reported usual takeaway food consumption, and these takeaway items were categorised into "healthy" and "less healthy" choices. Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education, household income, and occupation. The mean BMI was 27.1kg/m(2) for men and 25.7kg/m(2) for women. Among men, none of the socioeconomic measures were associated with BMI. In contrast, women with diploma/vocational education (β=2.12) and high school only (β=2.60), and those who were white-collar (β=1.55) and blue-collar employees (β=2.83) had significantly greater BMI compared with their more advantaged counterparts. However, household income was not associated with BMI. Among women, the consumption of "less healthy" takeaway food mediated BMI differences between the least and most educated, and between those employed in blue collar occupations and their higher status counterparts. Decreasing the consumption of "less healthy" takeaway options may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in overweight and obesity among women but not men.

Socioeconomic inequalities in diet and bodyweight: Evidence, causes, and intervention options

Diets low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and high in saturated fat, salt, and sugar are the major contributors to the burden of chronic diseases globally. Previous research, and studies in this issue of Public Health Nutrition (PHN), show that unhealthy diets are more commonly observed among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and are key contributors to their higher rates of chronic disease. Most research examining socioeconomic inequalities in diet and bodyweight has been descriptive, and has focused on identifying the nature, extent, and direction of the inequalities. These types of studies are clearly necessary and important. We need however to move beyond description of the problem and focus much more on the question of why inequalities in diet and bodyweight exist. Furthering our understanding of this question will provide the necessary evidence-base to develop effective interventions to reduce the inequalities. The challenge of tackling dietary inequalities however doesn’t finish here: a maximally effective approach will also require equity-based policies that address the unequal population-distribution of social and economic resources, which is the fundamental root-cause of dietary and bodyweight inequalities.

A framework for evaluating the impact of obesity prevention strategies on socioeconomic inequalities in weight

We developed a theoretical framework to organize obesity prevention interventions by their likely impact on the socioeconomic gradient of weight. The degree to which an intervention involves individual agency versus structural change influences socioeconomic inequalities in weight. Agentic interventions, such as standalone social marketing, increase socioeconomic inequalities. Structural interventions, such as food procurement policies and restrictions on unhealthy foods in schools, show equal or greater benefit for lower socioeconomic groups. Many obesity prevention interventions belong to the agento–structural types of interventions, and account for the environment in which health behaviors occur, but they require a level of individual agency for behavioral change, including workplace design to encourage exercise and fiscal regulation of unhealthy foods or beverages. Obesity prevention interventions differ in their effectiveness across socioeconomic groups. Limiting further increases in socioeconomic inequalities in obesity requires implementation of structural interventions. Further empirical evaluation, especially of agento–structural type interventions, remains crucial.

Socioeconomic inequalities in attitudes towards cancer: An international cancer benchmarking partnership study

Socioeconomic status (SES) differences in attitudes towards cancer have been implicated in the differential screening uptake and the timeliness of symptomatic presentation. However, the predominant emphasis of this work has been on cancer fatalism, and many studies focus on specific community subgroups. This study aimed to assess SES differences in positive and negative attitudes towards cancer in UK adults. A population-based sample of UK adults (n=6965, age≥50 years) completed the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer scale, including six belief items: three positively framed (e.g. 'Cancer can often be cured') and three negatively framed (e.g. 'A cancer diagnosis is a death sentence'). SES was indexed by education. Analyses controlled for sex, ethnicity, marital status, age, self-rated health, and cancer experience. There were few education-level differences for the positive statements, and overall agreement was high (all>90%). In contrast, there were strong differences for negative statements (all Ps<0.001). Among respondents with lower education levels, 57% agreed that 'treatment is worse than cancer', 27% that cancer is 'a death sentence' and 16% 'would not want to know if I have cancer'. Among those with university education, the respective proportions were 34, 17 and 6%. Differences were not explained by cancer experience or health status. In conclusion, positive statements about cancer outcomes attract near-universal agreement. However, this optimistic perspective coexists alongside widespread fears about survival and treatment, especially among less-educated groups. Health education campaigns targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups might benefit from a focus on reducing negative attitudes, which is not necessarily achieved by promoting positive attitudes.

Sex and socioeconomic inequalities of lung cancer mortality in Barcelona, Spain and Sao Paulo, Brazil

The objective of this paper was to assess sex and socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer mortality in two major cities of Europe and South America. Official information on mortality and population allowed the estimation of sex- and age-specific death rates for Barcelona, Spain and Sao Paulo, Brazil (1995-2003). Mortality trends and levels were independently assessed for each city and subsequently compared. Rate ratios assessed by Poisson regression analysis addressed hypotheses of association between the outcome and socioeconomic covariates (human development index, unemployment and schooling) at the inner-city area level. Barcelona had a higher mortality in men (76.9/100000 inhabitants) than Sao Paulo (38.2/100 000 inhabitants); although rates were decreasing for the former (-2%/year) and levelled-off for the [after. Mortality in women ranked similarly (9.1 for Barcelona, 11.5 for Sao Paulo); with an increasing trend for women aged 35-64 years (+ 7.7%/year in Barcelona and + 2.4%/year in Sao Paulo). The socioeconomic gradient of mortality in men was negative for Barcelona and positive for Sao Paulo; for women, the socioeconomic gradient was positive in both cities. Negative gradients indicate that deprived areas suffer a higher burden of disease; positive gradients suggest that prosmoking lifestyles may have been more prevalent in more affluent areas during the last decades. Sex and socioeconomic inequalities of lung cancer mortality reinforce the hypothesis that the epidemiologic profile of cancer can be improved by an expanded access to existing technology of healthcare and prevention. The continuous monitoring of inequalities in health may contribute to the concurrent promotion of well-being and social justice.

Neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in food access and affordability

This study investigated whether the availability and accessibility of supermarkets and fruit and vegetable stores, and the availability, variety and price of foods within these stores, varied across areas of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage in Melbourne, Australia. Data on food store locations, and food variety and price within stores were obtained through objective audits of 45 neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic disadvantage. Geographical accessibility of healthy food stores was mostly better amongst those living in more advantaged neighbourhoods. Availability of healthy foods within stores only slightly favoured those in advantaged neighbourhoods. However food prices favoured those living in disadvantaged areas.