A multilevel study of area socio-economic status and food purchasing behaviour

Abstract

Objective: The present study examined the association between area socioeconomic 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 socioeconomic 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.

Neighbourhood-socioeconomic variation in women's diet: the role of nutrition environments

“…However, only associations for vegetable and fast-food consumption remained significant after adjustment for individual SEP. Acknowledging the cross-sectional design does not permit causal inference, this is suggestive that fruit intake may be more influenced by individual-than by neighbourhood-level factors, which is inconsistent with previous Australian evidence (Turrell et al, 2009). The significant associations of neighbourhood disadvantage with vegetable and fast-food consumption, on the other hand, are similar to those previously reported from Australia, the UK, the US and Europe, suggesting that certain aspects of diet are patterned by area-level disadvantage (Subar et al, 1995;Ecob and Macintyre, 2000;Shohaimi et al, 2004;Ball et al, 2006).…”

“…Recently, attention has shifted to socioeconomic differences at the neighbourhood level. Evidence of associations with neighbourhood disadvantage are mixed, with some studies showing inverse associations between neighbourhood disadvantage and dietary quality (Turrell et al, 2009), whereas others report no difference after controlling for individual characteristics (Giskes et al, 2006).…”

Projected socioeconomic disparities in the prevalence of obesity among Australian adults

“…30,31 The increasingly higher prevalence of obesity in those with lower education levels illustrated in our study is likely to lead to increases in socioeconomic inequalities in health outcomes including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and osteoarthritis. Reducing socioeconomic differences in obesity prevalence will be critical to reduce future inequalities in the burden of chronic disease.…”

Let’s talk about health: shoppers’ discourse regarding health while food shopping

“…Research has reported that consumers face difficulty in translating their understanding of health into healthful food purchases (12)(13)(14) , with consumers facing trade-offs between different values each time they choose a food (15) . Food choice is influenced by a myriad of competing, accommodating and negotiating factors (16,17) involving individual ideals, social relationships and food contexts (8,18) , all of which have been widely documented in the literature (19)(20)(21)(22) . While health is frequently mentioned as a consideration in food choice behaviour, its impact and importance have been under-researched (23,24) .…”