The Experts below are selected from a list of 8382 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gavin Turrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the contribution of three components of nutrition knowledge to socio economic differences in Food Purchasing choices
Public Health Nutrition, 2014Co-Authors: Loretta Mckinnon, Katrina Giskes, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Objectives To assess socio-economic differences in three components of nutrition knowledge, i.e. knowledge of (i) the relationship between diet and disease, (ii) the nutrient content of Foods and (iii) dietary guideline recommendations; furthermore, to determine if socio-economic differences in nutrition knowledge contribute to inequalities in Food Purchasing choices. Design The cross-sectional study considered household Food Purchasing, nutrition knowledge, socio-economic and demographic information. Household Food Purchasing choices were summarised by three indices, based on self-reported Purchasing of sixteen groceries, nineteen fruits and twenty-one vegetables. Socio-economic position (SEP) was measured by household income and education. Associations between SEP, nutrition knowledge and Food Purchasing were examined using general linear models adjusted for age, gender, household type and household size. Setting Brisbane, Australia in 2000. Subjects Main household Food shoppers ( n 1003, response rate 66·4 %), located in fifty small areas (Census Collectors Districts). Results Shoppers in households of low SEP made Food Purchasing choices that were less consistent with dietary guideline recommendations: they were more likely to purchase grocery Foods comparatively higher in salt, sugar and fat, and lower in fibre, and they purchased a narrower range of fruits and vegetables. Those of higher SEP had greater nutrition knowledge and this factor attenuated most associations between SEP and Food Purchasing choices. Among nutrition knowledge factors, knowledge of the relationship between diet and disease made the greatest and most consistent contribution to explaining socio-economic differences in Food Purchasing. Conclusions Addressing inequalities in nutrition knowledge is likely to reduce socio-economic differences in compliance with dietary guidelines. Improving knowledge of the relationship between diet and disease appears to be a particularly relevant focus for health promotion aimed to reduce socio-economic differences in diet and related health inequalities.
-
the contribution of three components of nutrition knowledge to socio economic differences in Food Purchasing choices
Centre for Health Research; Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, 2014Co-Authors: Loretta Mckinnon, Katrina Giskes, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Free to read Objectives: To assess socio-economic differences in three components of nutrition knowledge, i.e. knowledge of (i) the relationship between diet and disease, (ii) the nutrient content of Foods and (iii) dietary guideline recommendations; furthermore, to determine if socio-economic differences in nutrition knowledge contribute to inequalities in Food Purchasing choices. Design: The cross-sectional study considered household Food Purchasing,nutrition knowledge, socio-economic and demographic information. Household Food Purchasing choices were summarised by three indices, based on self-reported Purchasing of sixteen groceries, nineteen fruits and twenty-one vegetables. Socio-economic position (SEP) was measured by household income and education. Associations between SEP, nutrition knowledge and Food Purchasing were examined using general linear models adjusted for age, gender, household type and household size. Setting: Brisbane, Australia in 2000. Subjects: Main household Food shoppers (n 1003, response rate 66?4 %), located in fifty small areas (Census Collectors Districts). Results: Shoppers in households of low SEP made Food Purchasing choices that were less consistent with dietary guideline recommendations: they were more likely to purchase grocery Foods comparatively higher in salt, sugar and fat, and lower in fibre, and they purchased a narrower range of fruits and vegetables. Those of higher SEP had greater nutrition knowledge and this factor attenuated most associations between SEP and Food Purchasing choices. Among nutrition knowledge factors, knowledge of the relationship between diet and disease made the greatest and most consistent contribution to explaining socio-economic differences in Food Purchasing. Conclusions: Addressing inequalities in nutrition knowledge is likely to reduce socio-economic differences in compliance with dietary guidelines. Improving knowledge of the relationship between diet and disease appears to be a particularly relevant focus for health promotion aimed to reduce socio-economic differences in diet and related health inequalities.
-
a multilevel study of area socio economic status and Food Purchasing behaviour
Public Health Nutrition, 2009Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Rebecca Bentley, Lyndal Thomas, Damien John Jolley, S V Subramanian, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Objective The present study examined the association between area socio-economic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design Data were collected by mail survey (64·2 % response rate). Area SES was indicated by the proportion of households in each area earning less than $AUS 400 per week, and individual-level socio-economic position was measured using education, occupation and household income. Food Purchasing was measured on the basis of compliance with dietary guideline recommendations (for grocery Foods) and variety of fruit and vegetable purchase. Multilevel regression analysis examined the association between area SES and Food purchase after adjustment for individual-level demographic (age, sex, household composition) and socio-economic factors. Setting Melbourne city, Australia, 2003. Subjects Residents of 2564 households located in fifty small areas. Results Residents of low-SES areas were significantly less likely than their counterparts in advantaged areas to purchase grocery Foods that were high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar; and they purchased a smaller variety of fruits. There was no evidence of an association between area SES and vegetable variety. Conclusions In Melbourne, area SES was associated with some Food Purchasing behaviours independent of individual-level factors, suggesting that areas in this city may be differentiated on the basis of Food availability, accessibility and affordability, making the purchase of some types of Foods more difficult in disadvantaged areas.
-
a multilevel study of area socio economic status and Food Purchasing behaviour
Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, 2009Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Rebecca Bentley, Lyndal Thomas, Damien John Jolley, S V Subramanian, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Objective: This study examined the association between area socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour.----- Setting: Melbourne city, Australia, 2003.----- Participants: Residents of 2,564 households located in 50 small areas.----- Design: Data were collected by mail survey (64.2% response rate). Area SES was indicated by the proportion of households in each area earning less than Aus$400 per week, and individual-level socioeconomic position was measured using education, occupation, and household income. Food Purchasing was measured on the basis of compliance with dietary guideline recommendations (for grocery Foods) and variety of fruit and vegetable purchase. Multilevel regression examined the association between area SES and Food purchase after adjustment for individual-level demographic (age, sex, household composition) and socioeconomic factors.----- Results: Residents of low SES areas were significantly less likely than their counterparts in advantaged areas to purchase grocery Foods that were high in fibre and low in fat, salt, and sugar; and they purchased a smaller variety of fruits. There was no evidence of an association between area SES and vegetable variety.----- Conclusions In Melbourne, area SES was associated with some Food Purchasing behaviours independent of individual-level factors, suggesting that areas in this city may be differentiated on the basis of Food availability, accessibility, and affordability, making the purchase of some types of Foods more difficult in disadvantaged areas.
-
socioeconomic inequalities in Food Purchasing the contribution of respondent perceived and actual objectively measured price and availability of Foods
Preventive Medicine, 2007Co-Authors: Katrina Giskes, F J Van Lenthe, Johannes Brug, J P Mackenbach, Gavin TurrellAbstract:Abstract Background. Research has shown that lower socioeconomic groups purchase Foods that are less consistent with dietary recommendations. The price and availability of Foods are thought to be important mediating factors between socioeconomic position and Food Purchasing. Objectives. We examined the relative contribution of the perceived and objectively measured price and availability of recommended Foods to household income differences in Food Purchasing. Methods. Using a face-to-face interview, a random sample of Brisbane residents ( n = 812) were asked about their Food Purchasing choices in 2000. They were also asked about their perceptions of the price and availability of ‘recommended’ Foods (i.e. choices lower in fat, saturated fat, sugar, salt or higher in fibre) in the supermarkets where they usually shopped. Audits measuring the actual availability and price of identical Foods were conducted in the same supermarkets. Results. Lower socioeconomic groups were less likely to make Food Purchasing choices consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. Objective availability and price differences were not associated with Purchasing choices, nor did they contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in Food Purchasing choices. Perceived availability and price differences were associated with the purchase of recommended Foods. Perceived availability made a small contribution to inequalities in Food Purchasing, however perceived price differences did not. Conclusion. Socioeconomic inequalities in Food Purchasing are not mediated by differential availability of recommended Foods and differences in price between recommended and regular Foods in supermarkets, or by perceptions of their relative price. However, differential perceptions of the availability of recommended Foods may play a small role in Food Purchasing inequalities.
Anne M Kavanagh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
association between fast Food Purchasing and the local Food environment
Nutrition & Diabetes, 2012Co-Authors: Lukar E Thornton, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:OBJECTIVE: In this study, an instrument was created to measure the healthy and unhealthy characteristics of Food environments and investigate associations between the whole of the Food environment and fast Food consumption. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: In consultation with other academic researchers in this field, Food stores were categorised to either healthy or unhealthy and weighted (between +10 and -10) by their likely contribution to healthy/unhealthy eating practices. A healthy and unhealthy Food environment score (FES) was created using these weightings. Using a cross-sectional study design, multilevel multinomial regression was used to estimate the effects of the whole Food environment on the fast Food Purchasing habits of 2547 individuals. RESULTS: Respondents in areas with the highest tertile of the healthy FES had a lower likelihood of Purchasing fast Food both infrequently and frequently compared with respondents who never purchased, however only infrequent Purchasing remained significant when simultaneously modelled with the unhealthy FES (odds ratio (OR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.83). Although a lower likelihood of frequent fast Food Purchasing was also associated with living in the highest tertile of the unhealthy FES, no association remained once the healthy FES was included in the models. In our binary models, respondents living in areas with a higher unhealthy FES than healthy FES were more likely to purchase fast Food infrequently (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.00-1.82) however no association was found for frequent Purchasing. CONCLUSION: Our study provides some evidence to suggest that healthier Food environments may discourage fast Food Purchasing.
-
individual and area level socioeconomic associations with fast Food Purchasing
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2011Co-Authors: Lukar E Thornton, Rebecca Bentley, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Background It has been suggested that those with lower socioeconomic characteristics would be more likely to seek energy-dense Food options such as fast Food because of cheaper prices; however, to date the evidence has been inconsistent. This study examines both individual- and area-level socioeconomic characteristics and their independent associations with chain-brand fast Food Purchasing. Methods Data from the 2003 Victorian Lifestyle and Neighbourhood Environments Study (VicLANES); a multilevel study of 2547 adults from 49 small-areas in Melbourne, Australia, were used. Multilevel multinomial models adjusted for confounders were used to assess associations between individual socioeconomic position (education, occupation and income) and area socioeconomic characteristics in relation to fast Food Purchasing from five major fast Food chains with outcome categories: never, at least monthly and at least weekly. The study finally assessed whether any potential area-level associations were mediated by fast Food access. Results Increased fast Food Purchasing was independently associated with lower education, being a blue-collar employee and decreased household income. Results for area-level disadvantage were marginally insignificant after adjustment for individual-level characteristics, although they were suggestive that living in an area with greater levels of disadvantage increased an individual9s odds of more frequent fast Food Purchasing. This effect was further attenuated when measures of fast Food restaurant access were included in the models. Conclusion Independent effects of lower individual-level socioeconomic characteristics and more frequent fast Food Purchasing for home consumption are demonstrated. Although evidence was suggestive of an independent association with area-level disadvantage this did not reach statistical significance.
-
a multilevel study of area socio economic status and Food Purchasing behaviour
Public Health Nutrition, 2009Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Rebecca Bentley, Lyndal Thomas, Damien John Jolley, S V Subramanian, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Objective The present study examined the association between area socio-economic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design Data were collected by mail survey (64·2 % response rate). Area SES was indicated by the proportion of households in each area earning less than $AUS 400 per week, and individual-level socio-economic position was measured using education, occupation and household income. Food Purchasing was measured on the basis of compliance with dietary guideline recommendations (for grocery Foods) and variety of fruit and vegetable purchase. Multilevel regression analysis examined the association between area SES and Food purchase after adjustment for individual-level demographic (age, sex, household composition) and socio-economic factors. Setting Melbourne city, Australia, 2003. Subjects Residents of 2564 households located in fifty small areas. Results Residents of low-SES areas were significantly less likely than their counterparts in advantaged areas to purchase grocery Foods that were high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar; and they purchased a smaller variety of fruits. There was no evidence of an association between area SES and vegetable variety. Conclusions In Melbourne, area SES was associated with some Food Purchasing behaviours independent of individual-level factors, suggesting that areas in this city may be differentiated on the basis of Food availability, accessibility and affordability, making the purchase of some types of Foods more difficult in disadvantaged areas.
-
a multilevel study of area socio economic status and Food Purchasing behaviour
Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, 2009Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Rebecca Bentley, Lyndal Thomas, Damien John Jolley, S V Subramanian, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Objective: This study examined the association between area socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour.----- Setting: Melbourne city, Australia, 2003.----- Participants: Residents of 2,564 households located in 50 small areas.----- Design: Data were collected by mail survey (64.2% response rate). Area SES was indicated by the proportion of households in each area earning less than Aus$400 per week, and individual-level socioeconomic position was measured using education, occupation, and household income. Food Purchasing was measured on the basis of compliance with dietary guideline recommendations (for grocery Foods) and variety of fruit and vegetable purchase. Multilevel regression examined the association between area SES and Food purchase after adjustment for individual-level demographic (age, sex, household composition) and socioeconomic factors.----- Results: Residents of low SES areas were significantly less likely than their counterparts in advantaged areas to purchase grocery Foods that were high in fibre and low in fat, salt, and sugar; and they purchased a smaller variety of fruits. There was no evidence of an association between area SES and vegetable variety.----- Conclusions In Melbourne, area SES was associated with some Food Purchasing behaviours independent of individual-level factors, suggesting that areas in this city may be differentiated on the basis of Food availability, accessibility, and affordability, making the purchase of some types of Foods more difficult in disadvantaged areas.
-
socio economic pathways to diet modelling the association between socio economic position and Food Purchasing behaviour
Faculty of Health, 2006Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Anne M KavanaghAbstract:Objectives To examine the association between education level and Food Purchasing behaviour and the contribution of dietary knowledge to this relationship; and the association between household income and Purchasing behaviour and the contribution made by subjective perceptions about the cost of healthy Food. Design and setting The study was conducted in Brisbane City (Australia) in 2000. The sample was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected by face-to-face interview from residents of private dwellings (n = 1003), and the response rate was 66.4%. Dietary knowledge was measured using a 20-item index that assessed general knowledge about Food, nutrition, health and their interrelationships. Food-cost concern was measured using a three-item scale derived from principal components analysis (α = 0.647). Food Purchasing was measured using a 16-item index that reflected a household's purchase of grocery items that were consistent (or otherwise) with dietary guideline recommendations. Associations among the variables were analysed using linear regression with adjustment for age and sex. Results Significant associations were found between education, household income and Food Purchasing behaviour. Food shoppers with low levels of education, and those residing in low-income households, were least likely to purchase Foods that were comparatively high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar. Socio-economic differences in dietary knowledge represented part of the pathway through which educational attainment exerts an influence on diet; and Food Purchasing differences by household income were related to diet in part via Food-cost concern. Conclusions Our findings suggest that socio-economic differences in Food Purchasing behaviour may contribute to the relationship between socio-economic position and Food and nutrient intakes, and, by extension, to socio-economic health inequalities for diet-related disease. Further, socio-economic differences in dietary knowledge and concerns about the cost of healthy Food play an important role in these relationships and hence should form the focus of future health promotion efforts directed at reducing health inequalities and encouraging the general population to improve their diets.
Brian Oldenburg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a multilevel analysis of socioeconomic small area differences in household Food Purchasing behaviour
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2004Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Tony Blakely, Carla Patterson, Brian OldenburgAbstract:Study objective: To examine the association between area and individual level socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design: The sample comprised 1000 households and 50 small areas. Data were collected by face to face interview (66.4% response rate). SES was measured using a composite area index of disadvantage (mean 1026.8, SD = 95.2) and household income. Purchasing behaviour was scored as continuous indices ranging from 0 to 100 for three Food types: fruits (mean 50.5, SD = 17.8), vegetables (61.8, 15.2), and grocery items (51.4, 17.6), with higher scores indicating Purchasing patterns more consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. Setting: Brisbane, Australia, 2000. Participants: Persons responsible for their household’s Food Purchasing. Main results: Controlling for age, gender, and household income, a two standard deviation increase on the area SES measure was associated with a 2.01 unit increase on the fruit Purchasing index (95% CI −0.49 to 4.50). The corresponding associations for vegetables and grocery Foods were 0.60 (−1.36 to 2.56) and 0.94 (−1.35 to 3.23). Before controlling for household income, significant area level differences were found for each Food, suggesting that clustering of household income within areas (a composition effect) accounted for the Purchasing variability between them. Conclusions: Living in a socioeconomically advantaged area was associated with a tendency to purchase healthier Food, however, the association was small in magnitude and the 95% CI for area SES included the null. Although urban areas in Brisbane are differentiated on the basis of their socioeconomic characteristics, it seems unlikely that where you live shapes your procurement of Food over and above your personal characteristics.
-
a multilevel analysis of socioeconomic small area differences in household Food Purchasing behaviour
Centre for Health Research; Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, 2004Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Tony Blakely, Carla Patterson, Brian OldenburgAbstract:Study objective: To examine the association between area- and individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design: The sample comprised 1000 households and 50 small areas, selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected by face-to-face interview (66.4% response rate). SES was measured using a composite area index of disadvantage (mean 1026.8, sd=95.2) and household income. Purchasing behaviour was scored as continuous indices ranging from 0 to 100 for three Food-types: fruits (mean 50.5, sd=17.8), vegetables (61.8, 15.2), and grocery items (51.4, 17.6), with higher scores indicating Purchasing patterns more consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. Setting: Brisbane metropolitan region, Australia, 2000 Participants: Persons aged 16-94 who were primarily responsible for their household’s Food Purchasing. Main results: Controlling for age, gender, and household income, a two standard deviation increase on the area-based SES measure was associated with a 2.01 unit-increase on the fruit Purchasing index (95% CI -0.49 to 4.50). The corresponding associations for vegetables and grocery Foods were 0.60 (-1.36 to 2.56) and 0.94 (-1.35 to 3.23). Prior to controlling for household income, significant area-level differences were found for each Food, suggesting that clustering of household income within areas (a composition effect) accounted for the Food Purchasing variability between them. Conclusions: Living in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area was associated with a tendency to have a healthier Food Purchasing profile, however, the magnitude of the association was weak-to-moderate and the 95% confidence intervals for area-SES included the null. Even though urban areas in Brisbane are differentiated on the basis of their socioeconomic characteristics, it seems unlikely that where you live shapes your procurement of Food over and above your personal characteristics. This is in contrast to metropolitan regions of the US and Britain, where spatial segregation along socioeconomic lines is large enough to be detectable in people's Food behaviour and dietary intakes.
-
the socio economic patterning of survey participation and non response error in a multilevel study of Food Purchasing behaviour area and individual level characteristics
Public Health Nutrition, 2003Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:Objective: To undertake an assessment of survey participation and non-response error in a population-based study that examined the relationship between socio-economic position and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design and setting: The study was conducted in Brisbane City (Australia) in 2000. The sample was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Respondents were recruited using a range of strategies that attempted to maximise the involvement of persons from disadvantaged backgrounds: respondents were contacted by personal visit and data were collected using home-based face-to-face interviews; multiple call-backs on different days and at different times were used; and a financial gratuity was provided. Participants: Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings ( n = 1003), located in 50 small areas that differed in their socio-economic characteristics. Results: Rates of survey participation – measured by non-contacts, exclusions, dropped cases, response rates and completions – were similar across areas, suggesting that residents of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged areas were equally likely to be recruited. Individual-level analysis, however, showed that respondents and non-respondents differed significantly in their sociodemographic and Food Purchasing characteristics: non-respondents were older, less educated and exhibited different Purchasing behaviours. Misclassification bias probably accounted for the inconsistent pattern of association between the area- and individual-level results. Estimates of bias due to non-response indicated that although respondents and non-respondents were qualitatively different, the magnitude of error associated with this differential was minimal. Conclusions: Socio-economic position measured at the individual level is a strong and consistent predictor of survey non-participation. Future studies that set out to examine the relationship between socio-economic position and diet need to adopt sampling strategies and data collection methods that maximise the likelihood of recruiting participants from all points on the socio-economic spectrum, and particularly persons from disadvantaged backgrounds. Study designs that are not sensitive to the difficulties associated with recruiting a socio-economically representative sample are likely to produce biased estimates (underestimates) of socio-economic differences in the dietary outcome being investigated.
-
socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet related health promotion
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 2002Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Belinda Hewitt, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:BACKGROUND: The relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and diet has been examined mainly on the basis of Food and nutrient intake. As a complement to this work, we focused on the socioeconomic patterning of Food Purchasing, as many educational dietary messages emphasize behaviours such as Food choice when shopping. Also, the type of Food people buy influences the quality of their nutrient intake. METHODS: A probability sample of households in Brisbane City, Australia (n = 1003, 66.4% response rate). Data were collected using face-to-face interviews. SEP was measured using education, occupation and household income. Food Purchasing was examined on the basis of grocery items (including meat and chicken) and fruit and vegetables. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between each socioeconomic indicator and Food Purchasing. Persons from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to purchase grocery Foods that were comparatively high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar. The least educated, those employed in blue-collar (manual) occupations and residents of low income households purchased fewer types of fruit and vegetables, and less regularly, than their higher status counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion efforts aimed at narrowing socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing need to be designed and implemented with an understanding of, and a sensitivity to, the barriers to nutritional improvement that difficult life circumstances can impose.
Trish Gould - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the socio economic patterning of survey participation and non response error in a multilevel study of Food Purchasing behaviour area and individual level characteristics
Public Health Nutrition, 2003Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:Objective: To undertake an assessment of survey participation and non-response error in a population-based study that examined the relationship between socio-economic position and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design and setting: The study was conducted in Brisbane City (Australia) in 2000. The sample was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Respondents were recruited using a range of strategies that attempted to maximise the involvement of persons from disadvantaged backgrounds: respondents were contacted by personal visit and data were collected using home-based face-to-face interviews; multiple call-backs on different days and at different times were used; and a financial gratuity was provided. Participants: Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings ( n = 1003), located in 50 small areas that differed in their socio-economic characteristics. Results: Rates of survey participation – measured by non-contacts, exclusions, dropped cases, response rates and completions – were similar across areas, suggesting that residents of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged areas were equally likely to be recruited. Individual-level analysis, however, showed that respondents and non-respondents differed significantly in their sociodemographic and Food Purchasing characteristics: non-respondents were older, less educated and exhibited different Purchasing behaviours. Misclassification bias probably accounted for the inconsistent pattern of association between the area- and individual-level results. Estimates of bias due to non-response indicated that although respondents and non-respondents were qualitatively different, the magnitude of error associated with this differential was minimal. Conclusions: Socio-economic position measured at the individual level is a strong and consistent predictor of survey non-participation. Future studies that set out to examine the relationship between socio-economic position and diet need to adopt sampling strategies and data collection methods that maximise the likelihood of recruiting participants from all points on the socio-economic spectrum, and particularly persons from disadvantaged backgrounds. Study designs that are not sensitive to the difficulties associated with recruiting a socio-economically representative sample are likely to produce biased estimates (underestimates) of socio-economic differences in the dietary outcome being investigated.
-
socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet related health promotion
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 2002Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Belinda Hewitt, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:BACKGROUND: The relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and diet has been examined mainly on the basis of Food and nutrient intake. As a complement to this work, we focused on the socioeconomic patterning of Food Purchasing, as many educational dietary messages emphasize behaviours such as Food choice when shopping. Also, the type of Food people buy influences the quality of their nutrient intake. METHODS: A probability sample of households in Brisbane City, Australia (n = 1003, 66.4% response rate). Data were collected using face-to-face interviews. SEP was measured using education, occupation and household income. Food Purchasing was examined on the basis of grocery items (including meat and chicken) and fruit and vegetables. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between each socioeconomic indicator and Food Purchasing. Persons from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to purchase grocery Foods that were comparatively high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar. The least educated, those employed in blue-collar (manual) occupations and residents of low income households purchased fewer types of fruit and vegetables, and less regularly, than their higher status counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion efforts aimed at narrowing socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing need to be designed and implemented with an understanding of, and a sensitivity to, the barriers to nutritional improvement that difficult life circumstances can impose.
Carla Patterson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a multilevel analysis of socioeconomic small area differences in household Food Purchasing behaviour
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2004Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Tony Blakely, Carla Patterson, Brian OldenburgAbstract:Study objective: To examine the association between area and individual level socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design: The sample comprised 1000 households and 50 small areas. Data were collected by face to face interview (66.4% response rate). SES was measured using a composite area index of disadvantage (mean 1026.8, SD = 95.2) and household income. Purchasing behaviour was scored as continuous indices ranging from 0 to 100 for three Food types: fruits (mean 50.5, SD = 17.8), vegetables (61.8, 15.2), and grocery items (51.4, 17.6), with higher scores indicating Purchasing patterns more consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. Setting: Brisbane, Australia, 2000. Participants: Persons responsible for their household’s Food Purchasing. Main results: Controlling for age, gender, and household income, a two standard deviation increase on the area SES measure was associated with a 2.01 unit increase on the fruit Purchasing index (95% CI −0.49 to 4.50). The corresponding associations for vegetables and grocery Foods were 0.60 (−1.36 to 2.56) and 0.94 (−1.35 to 3.23). Before controlling for household income, significant area level differences were found for each Food, suggesting that clustering of household income within areas (a composition effect) accounted for the Purchasing variability between them. Conclusions: Living in a socioeconomically advantaged area was associated with a tendency to purchase healthier Food, however, the association was small in magnitude and the 95% CI for area SES included the null. Although urban areas in Brisbane are differentiated on the basis of their socioeconomic characteristics, it seems unlikely that where you live shapes your procurement of Food over and above your personal characteristics.
-
a multilevel analysis of socioeconomic small area differences in household Food Purchasing behaviour
Centre for Health Research; Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, 2004Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Tony Blakely, Carla Patterson, Brian OldenburgAbstract:Study objective: To examine the association between area- and individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design: The sample comprised 1000 households and 50 small areas, selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected by face-to-face interview (66.4% response rate). SES was measured using a composite area index of disadvantage (mean 1026.8, sd=95.2) and household income. Purchasing behaviour was scored as continuous indices ranging from 0 to 100 for three Food-types: fruits (mean 50.5, sd=17.8), vegetables (61.8, 15.2), and grocery items (51.4, 17.6), with higher scores indicating Purchasing patterns more consistent with dietary guideline recommendations. Setting: Brisbane metropolitan region, Australia, 2000 Participants: Persons aged 16-94 who were primarily responsible for their household’s Food Purchasing. Main results: Controlling for age, gender, and household income, a two standard deviation increase on the area-based SES measure was associated with a 2.01 unit-increase on the fruit Purchasing index (95% CI -0.49 to 4.50). The corresponding associations for vegetables and grocery Foods were 0.60 (-1.36 to 2.56) and 0.94 (-1.35 to 3.23). Prior to controlling for household income, significant area-level differences were found for each Food, suggesting that clustering of household income within areas (a composition effect) accounted for the Food Purchasing variability between them. Conclusions: Living in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area was associated with a tendency to have a healthier Food Purchasing profile, however, the magnitude of the association was weak-to-moderate and the 95% confidence intervals for area-SES included the null. Even though urban areas in Brisbane are differentiated on the basis of their socioeconomic characteristics, it seems unlikely that where you live shapes your procurement of Food over and above your personal characteristics. This is in contrast to metropolitan regions of the US and Britain, where spatial segregation along socioeconomic lines is large enough to be detectable in people's Food behaviour and dietary intakes.
-
the socio economic patterning of survey participation and non response error in a multilevel study of Food Purchasing behaviour area and individual level characteristics
Public Health Nutrition, 2003Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:Objective: To undertake an assessment of survey participation and non-response error in a population-based study that examined the relationship between socio-economic position and Food Purchasing behaviour. Design and setting: The study was conducted in Brisbane City (Australia) in 2000. The sample was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Respondents were recruited using a range of strategies that attempted to maximise the involvement of persons from disadvantaged backgrounds: respondents were contacted by personal visit and data were collected using home-based face-to-face interviews; multiple call-backs on different days and at different times were used; and a financial gratuity was provided. Participants: Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings ( n = 1003), located in 50 small areas that differed in their socio-economic characteristics. Results: Rates of survey participation – measured by non-contacts, exclusions, dropped cases, response rates and completions – were similar across areas, suggesting that residents of socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged areas were equally likely to be recruited. Individual-level analysis, however, showed that respondents and non-respondents differed significantly in their sociodemographic and Food Purchasing characteristics: non-respondents were older, less educated and exhibited different Purchasing behaviours. Misclassification bias probably accounted for the inconsistent pattern of association between the area- and individual-level results. Estimates of bias due to non-response indicated that although respondents and non-respondents were qualitatively different, the magnitude of error associated with this differential was minimal. Conclusions: Socio-economic position measured at the individual level is a strong and consistent predictor of survey non-participation. Future studies that set out to examine the relationship between socio-economic position and diet need to adopt sampling strategies and data collection methods that maximise the likelihood of recruiting participants from all points on the socio-economic spectrum, and particularly persons from disadvantaged backgrounds. Study designs that are not sensitive to the difficulties associated with recruiting a socio-economically representative sample are likely to produce biased estimates (underestimates) of socio-economic differences in the dietary outcome being investigated.
-
socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing behaviour and suggested implications for diet related health promotion
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 2002Co-Authors: Gavin Turrell, Belinda Hewitt, Carla Patterson, Brian Oldenburg, Trish GouldAbstract:BACKGROUND: The relationship between socioeconomic position (SEP) and diet has been examined mainly on the basis of Food and nutrient intake. As a complement to this work, we focused on the socioeconomic patterning of Food Purchasing, as many educational dietary messages emphasize behaviours such as Food choice when shopping. Also, the type of Food people buy influences the quality of their nutrient intake. METHODS: A probability sample of households in Brisbane City, Australia (n = 1003, 66.4% response rate). Data were collected using face-to-face interviews. SEP was measured using education, occupation and household income. Food Purchasing was examined on the basis of grocery items (including meat and chicken) and fruit and vegetables. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between each socioeconomic indicator and Food Purchasing. Persons from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to purchase grocery Foods that were comparatively high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar. The least educated, those employed in blue-collar (manual) occupations and residents of low income households purchased fewer types of fruit and vegetables, and less regularly, than their higher status counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion efforts aimed at narrowing socioeconomic differences in Food Purchasing need to be designed and implemented with an understanding of, and a sensitivity to, the barriers to nutritional improvement that difficult life circumstances can impose.