Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with fast food purchasing

Objective: To examine socio-economic differences in the frequency and types of takeaway foods consumed. Design: A cross-sectional postal survey. Setting: Participants were asked about their usual consumption of overall takeaway food (,4 times/month or $4 times/month) and of twenty-two specific takeaway food items (,1 time/month or $1 time/month); these latter foods were grouped into 'healthy' and 'less healthy' choices. Socio-economic position was measured on the basis of educational level and equivalised household income, and differences in takeaway food consumption were assessed by calculating prevalence ratios using log binomial regression. Subjects: Adults aged 25-64 years from Brisbane, Australia, were randomly selected from the electoral roll (n 903; 63?7 % response rate).

Section: Educational Differences In Takeaway Food Consumptionsupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-economic differences in takeaway food consumption among adults

Miura

Giskes

Turrell

2011

“…This involves advising participants on how to increase their consumption of fruit, vegetables and cereals, and reduce their consumption of foods high in salt, fat and/or sugar. As in other countries, those of lower SES in Australia have higher than average intakes of unhealthy foods and lower than average intakes of fruits and vegetables (25)(26)(27)(28) . The FOODcents curriculum specifically addresses these consumption behaviours that are associated with risk of chronic disease (29,30) .…”

Section: About Foodcentsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Evaluation outcomes of a long-running adult nutrition education programme

Pettigrew

Moore

Pratt

et al. 2015

Objective: For more than 20 years, the FOODcents adult nutrition education programme has been delivered to Western Australians. The aim of the programme is to provide disadvantaged individuals with the knowledge, skills and motivation to buy healthy foods on a limited budget. The present study evaluated whether the FOODcents curriculum and the way it is delivered are effective in improving participants' nutrition-related knowledge and behaviours. Design: Evaluation data were collected via in-session pre-post questionnaires and a post-course online questionnaire. Setting: Western Australia. Subjects: Data were collected from participants attending just over one-half (54 %) of the FOODcents courses conducted over the two-year evaluation period. In total, 927 course participants provided usable data. Results: After exposure to the course, respondents demonstrated an improved ability to: (i) categorize foods according to the frequency with which they should be consumed and the proportion of the food budget that should be allocated to them; (ii) correctly interpret nutrition labels on food products; and (iii) appreciate the link between diet/obesity and a range of diseases. Improvements in the latter were especially pronounced among participants of low socio-economic status. In terms of behaviour change, significant improvements in fruit and vegetable consumption were reported, along with reductions in the consumption of fast food. Participants of low socio-economic status reported the greatest changes. Conclusions:The results indicate that the FOODcents nutrition education programme improves participants' nutrition-related knowledge and behaviours.

“…The current study's strengths included the use of a large population-based sample, the comprehensive range of dietary measures surveyed including healthy and less healthy options, the inclusion of three different types of food insecurity in one study, the adjustment for a number of potential confounders which are known to be predictive of healthy (29) and fast-food consumption (20) , and having both chain and non-chain fast-food outcomes which expands the scope of the fast-food outlets studied. It is also recognised that the study included some limitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between the purchase of healthy and fast foods and restrictions to food access: a cross-sectional study in Melbourne, Australia

Burns

Bentley

Thornton

et al. 2013

Objective: To examine the associations between financial, physical and transport conditions that may restrict food access (which we define as food security indicators) and the purchase of fast foods and nutritious staples such as bread and milk. Design: Multilevel logistic and multinomial regression analysis of cross-sectional survey data to assess associations between the three indicators of food insecurity and household food shopping adjusted for sociodemographic and socio-economic variables. Setting: Random selection of households (n 3995) from fifty Census Collector Districts in Melbourne, Australia, in 2003. Subjects: The main food shoppers in each household (n 2564). Results: After adjustment for confounders, analysis showed that a greater likelihood of purchasing chain-brand fast food on a weekly basis compared with never was associated with running out of money to buy food (OR 5 1?59; 95 % CI 1?08, 2?34) and reporting difficulties lifting groceries (OR 5 1?77; 95 % CI 1?23, 2?54). Respondents without regular access to a car to do food shopping were less likely to purchase bread types considered more nutritious than white bread (OR 5 0?75; 95 % CI 0?59, 0?95) and milk types considered more nutritious than full-cream milk (OR 5 0?62; 95 % CI 0?47, 0?81). The food insecurity indicators were not associated with the purchasing of fruits, vegetables or non-chain fast food. Conclusions: Householders experiencing financial and physical barriers were more likely to frequently purchase chain fast foods while limited access to a car resulted in a lower likelihood that the nutritious options were purchased for two core food items (bread and milk). Policies and interventions that improve financial access to food and lessen the effect of physical limitations to carrying groceries may reduce the purchasing of fast foods. Further research is required on food sourcing and dietary quality among those with food access restrictions.