To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
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.
Brisbane, Australia in 2000.
Main household food shoppers (n 1003, response rate 66·4 %), located in fifty small areas (Census Collectors Districts).
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.
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.
Food insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability or access to nutritionally adequate, culturally appropriate and safe foods. Food insecurity may result in inadequate dietary intakes, overweight or obesity and the development of chronic disease. Internationally, few studies have focused on the range of potential health outcomes related to food insecurity among adults residing in disadvantaged locations and no such Australian studies exist. The objective of the present study was to investigate associations between food insecurity, sociodemographic and health factors and dietary intakes among adults residing in disadvantaged urban areas.
Data were collected by mail survey (n 505, 53 % response rate), which ascertained information about food security status, demographic characteristics (such as age, gender, household income, education) fruit and vegetable intakes, takeaway and meat consumption, general health, depression and chronic disease.
Disadvantaged suburbs of Brisbane city, Australia, 2009.
Individuals aged ≥ 20 years.
Approximately one in four households (25 %) was food insecure. Food insecurity was associated with lower household income, poorer general health, increased health-care utilisation and depression. These associations remained after adjustment for age, gender and household income.
Food insecurity is prevalent in urbanised disadvantaged areas in developed countries such as Australia. Low-income households are at high risk of experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity may result in significant health burdens among the population, and this may be concentrated in socio-economically disadvantaged suburbs.
To examine socio-economic differences in the frequency and types of takeaway foods consumed.
A cross-sectional postal survey.
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.
Adults aged 25–64 years from Brisbane, Australia, were randomly selected from the electoral roll (n 903; 63·7 % response rate).
Compared with their more educated counterparts, the least educated were more regular consumers of overall takeaway food and fruit or vegetable juice and less regular consumers of sushi. For the ‘less healthy’ items, the least educated more regularly consumed potato chips, savoury pies, fried chicken and non-diet soft drinks; however, the least educated were less likely to consume curry. Household income was not associated with overall takeaway consumption. The lowest-income group was a more regular consumer of fruit or vegetable juice compared with the highest-income group. Among the ‘less healthy’ items, the lowest-income group was a more regular consumer of fried fish, ice cream and milk shakes, whereas curry was consumed less regularly.
The frequency and types of takeaway foods consumed by socio-economically disadvantaged groups may contribute to inequalities in overweight or obesity and to chronic disease.
To examine socio-economic differences in weight-control behaviours (WCB) and barriers to weight control.
A cross-sectional study.
Data were obtained by means of a postal questionnaire.
A total of 1013 men and women aged 45–60 years residing in Brisbane, Australia (69·8 % response rate).
Binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusted for age, gender and BMI. Socio-economically disadvantaged groups were less likely to engage in weight control (OR for lowest income quartile = 0·60, 95 % CI 0·39, 0·94); among those who engaged in weight control, the disadvantaged group had a likelihood of 0·52 (95 % CI 0·30, 0·90) of adopting exercise strategies, including moderate (OR = 0·56, 95 % CI 0·33, 0·96) and vigorous (OR = 0·47, 95 % CI 0·25, 0·89) physical activities, compared with their more-advantaged counterparts. However, lower socio-economic groups were more likely to decrease their sitting time to control their weight compared with their advantaged counterparts (OR for secondary school or lower education = 1·78, 95 % CI 1·11, 2·84). They were also more likely to believe that losing weight was expensive, not of high priority, required a lot of cooking skills and involved eating differently from others in the household.
Marked socio-economic inequalities existed with regard to engaging in WCB, the type of weight-control strategies used and the perceived barriers to weight control; these differences are consistent with socio-economic gradients in weight status. These factors may need to be included in health promotion strategies that address socio-economic inequalities in weight status, as well as inequalities in weight-related health outcomes.
The present study examined the association between area socio-economic status (SES) and food purchasing behaviour.
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.
Melbourne city, Australia, 2003.
Residents of 2564 households located in fifty small areas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To examine the influence of individual- and area-level socio-economic characteristics on food choice behaviour and dietary intake.
The city of Eindhoven in the south-east Netherlands.
A total of 1339 men and women aged 25–79 years were sampled from 85 areas (mean number of participants per area = 18.4, range 2–49). Information on socio-economic position (SEP) and diet was collected by structured face-to-face interviews (response rate 80.9%). Individual-level SEP was measured by education and household income, and area-level deprivation was measured using a composite index that included residents' education, occupation and employment status. Diet was measured on the basis of (1) a grocery food index that captured compliance with dietary guidelines, (2) breakfast consumption and (3) intakes of fruit, total fat and saturated fat. Multilevel analyses were performed to examine the independent effects of individual- and area-level socio-economic characteristics on the dietary outcome variables.
After adjusting for individual-level SEP, few trends or significant effects of area deprivation were found for the dietary outcomes. Significant associations were found between individual-level SEP and food choice, breakfast consumption and fruit intake, with participants from disadvantaged backgrounds being less likely to report food behaviours or nutrient intakes consistent with dietary recommendations.
The findings suggest that an individual's socio-economic characteristics play a more important role in shaping diet than the socio-economic characteristics of the area in which they live. In this Dutch study, no independent influence of area-level socio-economic characteristics on diet was detected, which contrasts with findings from the USA, the UK and Finland.
To examine the association between socio-economic position (SEP) and diet, by assessing the unadjusted and simultaneously adjusted (independent) contributions of education, occupation and household income to food purchasing behaviour
The sample was randomly selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design, and the response rate was 66.4%. Data were collected by face-to-face interview. Food purchasing was examined on the basis of three composite indices that reflected a household's choice of grocery items (including meat and chicken), fruit and vegetables
Brisbane City, Australia, 2000
Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings (n = 1003), located in 50 small areas (Census Collectors Districts)
When shopping, respondents in lower socio-economic groups were less likely to purchase grocery foods that were high in fibre and low in fat, salt and sugar. Disadvantaged groups purchased fewer types of fresh fruits and vegetables, and less often, than their counterparts from more advantaged backgrounds. When the relationship between SEP and food purchasing was examined using each indicator separately, education and household income made an unadjusted contribution to purchasing behaviour for all three food indices; however, occupation was significantly related only with the purchase of grocery foods. When education and occupation were simultaneously adjusted for each other, the socio-economic patterning with food purchase remained largely unchanged, although the strength of the associations was attenuated. When household income was introduced into the analysis, the association between education, occupation and food purchasing behaviour was diminished or became non-significant; income, however, showed a strong, graded association with food choice
The food purchasing behaviours of socio-economically disadvantaged groups were least in accord with dietary guideline recommendations, and hence are more consistent with greater risk for the development of diet-related disease. The use of separate indicators for education, occupation and household income each adds something unique to our understanding of how socio-economic position is related to diet: each indicator reflects a different underlying social process and hence they are not interchangeable, and do not serve as adequate proxies for one another
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.
Non-institutionalised residents of private dwellings (n = 1003), located in 50 small areas that differed in their socio-economic characteristics.
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.
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.
To determine whether socio-economic groups differ in their fruit and vegetable consumption, and the variety eaten, and whether socio-economic differences are similar for adolescents and adults. The study also examined whether socio-economic groups vary in their reported desire to increase the amount of fruit and vegetables consumed, and the perceived barriers to achieving this.
Design, setting and subjects: The 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey collected fruit and vegetable intake data from adolescents aged 13–17 years (n = 654) and adults 18–64 years (n = 7695) using a 24-hour dietary recall. Gross annual household income was used to measure socio-economic position.
Approximately 44% of males and 34% of females did not consume fruit in the 24 hours preceding the survey, and 20% of males and 17% of females did not consume vegetables. Among adolescents and adults, fruit and vegetable consumption was positively related to income. The only exception was vegetable consumption among adolescent males, which did not vary by income Lower-income adults consumed a smaller variety of fruits and vegetables than their higher-income counterparts. Fruit and vegetable variety did not vary by income among adolescents. Lower-income adults expressed less desire to increase their fruit and vegetable consumption, and were more likely to report that price and storage were barriers to doing so. Socio-economic differences in consumption and variety were more apparent for adults than for adolescents.
In addition to increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables among the general population, nutrition interventions, programmes and policy aiming to improve diet should target adolescents and adults from low socio-economic groups. Strategies should address price and storage barriers.
Despite the long-held myth of equality and egalitarianism, Australia is a socially and economically divided society: it was from the early days of white settlement (Connell 1977), it has been since (Western 1983; Baxter et al. 1991), it still is today (Fincher and Nieuwenhuysen 1998), and all indications are that it will continue to be so in the future (Megalogenis 2000). In fact, the socio-economic divisions within this country are predicted to widen (Kelly 2000; Steketee and Haslem 2000). Income inequality is a key indicator of this divide. Between 1982 and 1993/94, earnings and private income inequality increased in Australia, and while most of this increase was offset by government-initiated changes to the taxation and welfare systems (Harding 1997), Australia still has marked inequities in its distribution of income. One perspective on the extent of income inequality in Australia is illustrated in figure 6.1. These data indicate the share of total weekly income received by the poorest and richest 20% of families between 1994 and 1998. For each period, families in the bottom quintile of the income distribution received less than 4% of the total income going to Australian families, whereas those in the top quintile received just under 50%. This represents more than a 12-fold difference in share of the nation's income. The extent of Australia's income inequality has also been made apparent in recent international assessments that have shown that Australia is not far behind ‘high’ inequality countries such as the United States and Britain in terms of its level of income disparity (Smeeding and Gottschalk 1999).
The movement towards a more divided society is of concern, not only because of its inherent injustices and offence to moral sensibility, but also in light of studies showing that income inequality is bad for health. Since the mid-1980s, a growing body of epidemiological and public health research has demonstrated that morbidity and mortality risk is greatest in areas with high levels of income inequality. At present, our knowledge and understanding of how income distribution affects health is limited, although a number of explanations have been proposed. These include differential investment in human, physical and social infrastructure; psychosocial processes related to perceptions of one's position in the socio-economic hierarchy; and social cohesion.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.