Socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption and their contribution to inequalities in dietary intakes

Background Takeaway consumption has been increasing and may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in overweight/obesity and chronic disease. This study examined socioeconomic differences in takeaway consumption patterns, and their contributions to dietary intake inequalities. Method Cross-sectional dietary intake data from adults aged between 25 and 64 years from the Australian National Nutrition Survey (n= 7319, 61% response rate). Twenty-four hour dietary recalls ascertained intakes of takeaway food, nutrients and fruit and vegetables. Education was used as socioeconomic indicator. Data were analysed using logistic regression and general linear models. Results Thirty-two percent (n = 2327) consumed takeaway foods in the 24 hour period. Lower-educated participants were less likely than their higher-educated counterparts to have consumed total takeaway foods (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52, 0.80). Of those consuming takeaway foods, the lowest-educated group was more likely to have consumed “less healthy” takeaway choices (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.73, 3.77), and less likely to have consumed “healthy” choices (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.36, 0.75). Takeaway foods made a greater contribution to energy, total fat, saturated fat, and fibre intakes among lower than higher-educated groups. Lower likelihood of fruit and vegetable intakes were observed among “less healthy” takeaway consumers, whereas a greater likelihood of their consumption was found among “healthy” takeaway consumers. Conclusions Total and the types of takeaway foods consumed may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in intakes of energy, total and saturated fats. However, takeaway consumption is unlikely to be a factor contributing to the lower fruit and vegetable intakes among socioeconomically-disadvantaged groups.

Contribution of take-out food consumption to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake : a mediation analysis

Lower fruit and vegetable intake among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups has been well documented, and may be a consequence of a higher consumption of take-out foods. This study examined whether, and to what extent, take-out food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and fruit and vegetable intake. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged 25–64 years in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (response rate = 63.7%, N = 903). A food frequency questionnaire assessed usual daily servings of fruits and vegetables (0 to 6), overall take-out consumption (times/week) and the consumption of 22 specific take-out items (never to ≥once/day). These specific take-out items were grouped into “less healthy” and “healthy” choices and indices were created for each type of choice (0 to 100). Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education. The analyses were performed using linear regression, and a bootstrap re-sampling approach estimated the statistical significance of the mediated effects. Mean daily serves of fruits and vegetables was 1.89 (SD 1.05) and 2.47 (SD 1.12) respectively. The least educated group were more likely to consume fewer serves of fruit (B= –0.39, p<0.001) and vegetables (B= –0.43, p<0.001) compared with the highest educated. The consumption of “less healthy” take-out food partly explained (mediated) education differences in fruit and vegetable intake; however, no mediating effects were observed for overall and “healthy” take-out consumption. Regular consumption of “less healthy” take-out items may contribute to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake, possibly by displacing these foods.

Socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption among adults

Background In Australia and other developed countries, there are consistent and marked socioeconomic inequalities in health. Diet is a major contributing factor to the poorer health of lower socioeconomic groups: the dietary patterns of disadvantaged groups are least consistent with dietary recommendations for the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases compared with their more advantaged counterparts. Part of the reason that lower socioeconomic groups have poorer diets may be their consumption of takeaway foods. These foods typically have nutrient contents that fail to comply with the dietary recommendations for the prevention of chronic disease and associated risk factors. A high level of takeaway food consumption, therefore, may negatively influence overall dietary intakes and, consequently, lead to adverse health outcomes. Despite this, little attention has focused on the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and takeaway food consumption, with the limited number of studies showing mixed results. Additionally, studies have been limited by only considering a narrow range of takeaway foods and not examining how different socioeconomic groups make choices that are more (or less) consistent with dietary recommendations. While a large number of earlier studies have consistently reported socioeconomically disadvantaged groups consume a lesser amount of fruit and vegetables, there is limited knowledge about the role of takeaway food in socioeconomic variations in fruit and vegetable intake. Furthermore, no known studies have investigated why there are socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption. The aims of this study are to: examine takeaway food consumption and the types of takeaway food consumed (healthy and less healthy) by different socioeconomic groups, to determine whether takeaway food consumption patterns explain socioeconomic variations in fruit and vegetable intake, and investigate the role of a range of psychosocial factors in explaining the association between SEP and takeaway food consumption and the choice of takeaway food. Methods This study used two cross-sectional population-based datasets: 1) the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey (NNS) which was conducted among a nationally representative sample of adults aged between 25.64 years (N = 7319, 61% response rate); and 2) the Food and Lifestyle Survey (FLS) which was conducted by the candidate and was undertaken among randomly selected adults aged between 25.64 years residing in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (N = 903, 64% response rate). The FLS extended the NNS in several ways by describing current socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption patterns, formally assessing the mediated effect of takeaway food consumption to socioeconomic inequalities in fruit and vegetable intake, and also investigating whether (and which) psychosocial factors contributed to the observed socioeconomic variations in takeaway food consumption patterns. Results Approximately 32% of the NNS participants consumed takeaway food in the previous 24 hours and 38% of the FLS participants reported consuming takeaway food once a week or more. The results from analyses of the NNS and the FLS were somewhat mixed; however, disadvantaged groups were likely to consume a high level of �\less healthy. takeaway food compared with their more advantaged counterparts. The lower fruit and vegetable intake among lower socioeconomic groups was partly mediated by their high consumption of �\less healthy. takeaway food. Lower socioeconomic groups were more likely to have negative meal preparation behaviours and attitudes, and weaker health and nutrition-related beliefs and knowledge. Socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption were partly explained by meal preparation behaviours and attitudes, and these factors along with health and nutrition-related beliefs and knowledge appeared to contribute to the socioeconomic variations in choice of takeaway foods. Conclusion This thesis enhances our understanding of socioeconomic differences in dietary behaviours and the potential pathways by describing takeaway food consumption patterns by SEP, explaining the role of takeaway food consumption in socioeconomic inequalities in fruit and vegetable intake, and identifying the potential impact of psychosocial factors on socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption and the choice of takeaway food. Some important evidence is also provided for developing policies and effective intervention programs to improve the diet quality of the population, especially among lower socioeconomic groups. This thesis concludes with a discussion of a number of recommendations about future research and strategies to improve the dietary intake of the whole population, and especially among disadvantaged groups.

The contribution of psychosocial factors to socioeconomic differences in food purchasing

In developed countries the relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and health is unequivocal. Those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are known to experience higher morbidity and mortality from a range of chronic diet-related conditions compared to those of higher SEP. Socioeconomic inequalities in diet are well established. Compared to their more advantaged counterparts, those of low SEP are consistently found to consume diets less consistent with dietary guidelines (i.e. higher in fat, salt and sugar and lower in fibre, fruit and vegetables). Although the reasons for dietary inequalities remain unclear, understanding how such differences arise is important for the development of strategies to reduce health inequalities. Both environmental (e.g. proximity of supermarkets, price, and availability of foods) and psychosocial (e.g. taste preference, nutrition knowledge) influences are proposed to account for inequalities in food choices. Although in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and parts of Australia, environmental factors are associated with socioeconomic differences in food choices, these factors do not completely account for the observed inequalities. Internationally, this context has prompted calls for further exploration of the role of psychological and social factors in relation to inequalities in food choices. It is this task that forms the primary goal of this PhD research. In the small body of research examining the contribution of psychosocial factors to inequalities in food choices, studies have focussed on food cost concerns, nutrition knowledge or health concerns. These factors are generally found to be influential. However, since a range of psychosocial factors are known determinants of food choices in the general population, it is likely that a range of factors also contribute to inequalities in food choices. Identification of additional psychosocial factors of relevance to inequalities in food choices would provide new opportunities for health promotion, including the adaption of existing strategies. The methodological features of previous research have also hindered the advancement of knowledge in this area and a lack of qualitative studies has resulted in a dearth of descriptive information on this topic. This PhD investigation extends previous research by assessing a range of psychosocial factors in relation to inequalities in food choices using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Secondary data analyses were undertaken using data obtained from two Brisbane-based studies, the Brisbane Food Study (N=1003, conducted in 2000), and the Sixty Families Study (N=60, conducted in 1998). Both studies involved main household food purchasers completing an interviewer-administered survey within their own home. Data pertaining to food-purchasing, and psychosocial, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were collected in each study. The mutual goals of both the qualitative and quantitative phases of this investigation were to assess socioeconomic differences in food purchasing and to identify psychosocial factors relevant to any observed differences. The quantitative methods then additionally considered whether the associations examined differed according to the socioeconomic indicator used (i.e. income or education). The qualitative analyses made a unique contribution to this project by generating detailed descriptions of socioeconomic differences in psychosocial factors. Those with lower levels of income and education were found to make food purchasing choices less consistent with dietary guidelines compared to those of high SEP. The psychosocial factors identified as relevant to food-purchasing inequalities were: taste preferences, health concerns, health beliefs, nutrition knowledge, nutrition concerns, weight concerns, nutrition label use, and several other values and beliefs unique to particular socioeconomic groups. Factors more tenuously or inconsistently related to socioeconomic differences in food purchasing were cost concerns, and perceived adequacy of the family diet. Evidence was displayed in both the quantitative and qualitative analyses to suggest that psychosocial factors contribute to inequalities in food purchasing in a collective manner. The quantitative analyses revealed that considerable overlap in the socioeconomic variation in food purchasing was accounted for by key psychosocial factors of importance, including taste preference, nutrition concerns, nutrition knowledge, and health concerns. Consistent with these findings, the qualitative transcripts demonstrated the interplay between such influential psychosocial factors in determining food-purchasing choices. The qualitative analyses found socioeconomic differences in the prioritisation of psychosocial factors in relation to food choices. This is suggestive of complex cultural factors that distinguish advantaged and disadvantaged groups and result in socioeconomically distinct schemas related to health and food choices. Compared to those of high SEP, those of lower SEP were less likely to indicate that health concerns, nutrition concerns, or food labels influenced food choices, and exhibited lower levels of nutrition knowledge. In the absence of health or nutrition-related concerns, taste preferences tended to dominate the food purchasing choices of those of low SEP. Overall, while cost concerns did not appear to be a main determinant of socioeconomic differences in food purchasing, this factor had a dominant influence on the food choices of some of the most disadvantaged respondents included in this research. The findings of this study have several implications for health promotion. The integrated operation of psychosocial factors on food purchasing inequalities indicates that multiple psychosocial factors may be appropriate to target in health promotion. It also seems possible that the inter-relatedness of psychosocial factors would allow health promotion targeting a single psychosocial factor to have a flow-on affect in terms of altering other influential psychosocial factors. This research also suggests that current mass marketing approaches to health promotion may not be effective across all socioeconomic groups due to differences in the priorities and main factors of influence in food purchasing decisions across groups. In addition to the practical recommendations for health promotion, this investigation, through the critique of previous research, and through the substantive study findings, has highlighted important methodological considerations for future research. Of particular note are the recommendations pertaining to the selection of socioeconomic indicators, measurement of relevant constructs, consideration of confounders, and development of an analytical approach. Addressing inequalities in health has been noted as a main objective by many health authorities and governments internationally. It is envisaged that the substantive and methodological findings of this thesis will make a useful contribution towards this important goal.

Socioeconomic differences in food choices : deficiencies in nutrition knowledge or simply too much on your plate?

Nutrition knowledge is associated with dietary choices in the general population and has been proposed to contribute to socioeconomic differences in food choices and corresponding socioeconomic gradients in mortality and morbidity for a number of diet-related illnesses. This paper explores current evidence regarding socioeconomic differences in nutrition knowledge, reviewing the components of nutrition knowledge that have been assessed, the dietary intake or food choice outcomes considered, and the socioeconomic indicators used. In addition, this paper considers how socioeconomic differences in nutrition knowledge may arise, and potential determinants of inequalities in the application of nutrition knowledge. It highlights issues to consider when developing strategies to improve nutrition knowledge and facilitate knowledge application among those of lower socioeconomic position.

Trends and Explanations for Socioeconomic Differences in Physical Activity

Very limited scientific knowledge exists on the trends and explanations of socioeconomic differences in physical activity among adults. There is a paucity of studies examining whether determinants vary across socioeconomic position and different life stages. This study examines a) how socioeconomic differences in leisure-time and commuting physical activity have changed in Finland from 1978 to 2002 and b) the contribution of childhood socioeconomic position, adolescence sports and exercise, adulthood socioeconomic position, working conditions and other adulthood health behaviours to socioeconomic differences in leisure-time physical activity. This study utilised three population-based datasets collected by the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL, formerly National Institute for Public Health): the Health Behaviour and Health among the Finnish Adult Population Study from 1978 to 2002 (N=96 105), the National FINRISK Study 2002 and its physical activity sub-study (N= 9 179), and the Health 2000 Study (N=8 028). Survey information was collected by self-administered questionnaires, interviews at home, and measurements made at the study site. The response rates varied from 69 to 89 per cent. Several socioeconomic measures were linked from the national population registers. Based on the results, those with low income were physically inactive during leisure-time and while commuting from 1978 to 2002. Manual worker women, however, were more physically active commuters compared to their counterparts. Parental socioeconomic position contributed directly to adulthood educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity but also indirectly through adulthood socioeconomic position (occupation, household income) and other unhealthy behaviours (mainly smoking). Among those with low education participation in competitive sports in youth and among those with high education exercise in late adolescence contributed to leisure-time physical activity in adulthood. Long exposure to physically strenuous working conditions in men and current job strain in women contributed to occupational class differences in leisure-time physical activity. Socioeconomic differences in physical activity have remained similar for twenty years in Finland. Educational career seems to have a strong contribution to physical activity. To adopt a lifelong physically active life-style, one should participate in a range of different sports and exercise in adolescence and in youth, have a low exposure to physically and mentally strenuous working conditions in later life and have other healthy behaviours in later life.

Socioeconomic differences in outdoor food advertising at public transit stops across Melbourne suburbs.

To assess and compare the number and type of outdoor food advertisements at public transit stops within suburbs of varying levels of socioeconomic disadvantage.

Factors associated with educational aspirations among adolescents: cues to counteract socioeconomic differences?

Our study aims to follow this effort and to explore the association between health, socioeconomic background, school-related factors, social support and adolescents' sense of coherence and educational aspirations among adolescents from different educational tracks and to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the role of educational aspirations in the social reproduction of health inequalities. We expect that socioeconomic background will contribute to the development of educational aspirations, but this association will be modified by available social and individual resources, which may be particularly favourable for the group of adolescents who are on lower educational tracks, since for them such resources may lead to gaining a higher educational level.