Sociodemographic determinants in Australia of the intake of food and nutrients implicated in cancer aetiology

Baghurst, Katrine; Record, Sally J.; Baghurst, Peter; Syrette, Julie; Crawford, David; Worsley, Anthony

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1990.tb126148.x

Cited by 46 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The consumption of alcohol is much higher in working class as compared to professional class Australian men (Saunders & Matheson, 1991). The consumption of animal fats is higher, although not greatly and the consumption of fruit and vegetables is lower, in working class persons (Baghurst et al, 1990). However the differences in nutritional patterns between the sexes are much greater than between social classes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Socioeconomic status: the prime indicator of premature death in Australia

Lawson

Black

1993

J. Biosoc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe link between socioeconomic status and health has long been recognised. This study of deaths among Australian men aged 15–59 years demonstrates that during the 20-year period, 1966–86 the number of premature deaths was dramatically reduced among all socioeconomic groups, primarily as a result of falls in death rates due to heart disease, stroke and trauma. However, the marked differences in death rates according to social class remain, to the extent that if men of all social classes had the same mortality experiences as professional and technical workers the overall death rates for Australian men would be reduced by 60%. Socioeconomic status is the most important indicator of health status among Australians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Socioeconomic status: the prime indicator of premature death in Australia

Lawson

Black

1993

J. Biosoc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food consumption research in different countries suggest that diets of higher SES groups are in better concurrence with dietary guidelines for cancer prevention. Subjects of upper SES categories generally eat more fruit and vegetables and dietary fiber, and less fat and energy (59,69,76,77) and might have a lower intake of nitrites and nitrosaniines…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Cancer Incidence and Mortality Among Socio-Economic Groups

Loon

Burg²,

Goldbohm³

et al. 1995

Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scarid J Sac hied 1995, 2 (110)(111)(112)(113)(114)(115)(116)(117)(118)(119)(120). Objectives: In this article studies on the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and risk for cancer at different sites are reviewed. hlethods: The review is restricted to studies conducted in affluent societies, after 1970. Only studies using income, education and/or occupation as SES indicators are included. Results: A more or less consistent positive association between SES and cancer risk was found for colon and breast cancer. hlore or less consistent inverse associations were found for lung, stomach, oropharyngeal and esophageal cancer. Inconsistent associations were reported for cancer of the rectum and pancreas. Possible explanations for SES differences in cancer risk are discussed with spccial emphasis on lifestyle variables related to cancer risk. Conclusions: It is concluded that it is still unclear whether the reported associations can be (partially) attributed to lifestyle related risk factors for cancer such as smoking, nutritional habits. drinking habits and reproductive factors.

show abstract

“…The main biases in the sample were: the overrepresentation of people with postsecondary education (observed proportion was 50%, expected 33%); the underrepresentation of manual workers (observed 16%, expected 23%) and overrepresentation of professionals and paraprofessionals (observed 28%, expected 20%); the underrepresentation of [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] year olds (observed 22%, expected 28%); and females who were not in the labour force (observed 36%, expected 52%). In terms of other age, sex, ethnic origin, income, and occupation groups, proportions were within 5% or less of expected values.…”

Section: Representativeness Of the Samplementioning

confidence: 98%

Public health implications of dietary differences between social status and occupational category groups.

Smith

Baghurst

1992

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Main results-The study achieved a 70% response rate. Higher social status was generally associated with healthier dietary intakes, with lower fat and refined sugar densities, and higher fibre densities, but also with higher alcohol density. No differences were found in salt, polyunsaturated fat, protein, or complex carbohydrate densities across groups. Food intake differences were also found between occupational status groups, with the upper social groups tend-ing to consume more wholegrain cereal foods, low fat milk, and fruit, and less refined cereal foods, full cream milk, fried meat, meat products, and discretionary sugar; but also more cheese and meat dishes. Conclusions-Although this study didshow statistically significant differences across social status groups in relation to nutrient and food intakes, these differences were small compared to the disparity between intakes of all groups and the recommended patterns of intake, and did not appear to be great enough to be a major explanatory variable in differences in disease risk across groups.

show abstract

Sociodemographic determinants in Australia of the intake of food and nutrients implicated in cancer aetiology

Cited by 46 publications

References 12 publications

Socioeconomic status: the prime indicator of premature death in Australia

Socioeconomic status: the prime indicator of premature death in Australia

Differences in Cancer Incidence and Mortality Among Socio-Economic Groups

Public health implications of dietary differences between social status and occupational category groups.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About