1,721,171 research outputs found
Socioeconomic disadvantage and the purchase of takeaway food : a multilevel analysis
No full textThis study examined relationships between individual-level socioeconomic position, area-level disadvantage, characteristics of the takeaway food environment, and the purchase of takeaway food. ‘Takeaway’ is conceptualised as foods or meals that are prepared and purchased outside of the home, and ready for immediate consumption either at the place of purchase or elsewhere. The analytic sample comprised 1001 households and 50 small areas in Brisbane, Australia. Takeaway food was purchased more regularly by high-income householders and those with higher levels of education. Residents of advantaged areas purchased takeaway food more regularly, although area differences attenuated to the null after adjustment for individual-level compositional factors. Number of takeaway shops in the local food environment, and road distance to the closest takeaway shop, were largely unrelated to the purchase of takeaway food. We conclude that there is little evidence that takeaway food purchasing in Brisbane is influenced by area-level socioeconomic disadvantage or features of the takeaway food environment. Rather, it seems that what matters most in terms of influencing the decision or capacity of Brisbane residents to purchase takeaway food are the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals and their households. The findings of this and previous analyses of the Brisbane Food Study data suggest that policy and health promotion aimed at improving the diets of residents and reducing dietary inequalities between socioeconomic groups should focus on people more so than places.\ud
\u
Confidence to cook vegetables and the buying habits of Australian households
No full textCooking skills are emphasized in nutrition promotion but their distribution among population subgroups and relationship to dietary behavior is researched by few population-based studies. This study examined the relationships between confidence to cook, sociodemographic characteristics, and household vegetable purchasing. This cross-sectional study of 426 randomly selected households in Brisbane, Australia, used a validated questionnaire to assess household vegetable purchasing habits and the confidence to cook of the person who most often prepares food for these households. The mutually adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of lacking confidence to cook were assessed across a range of demographic subgroups using multiple logistic regression models. Similarly, mutually adjusted mean vegetable purchasing scores were calculated using multiple linear regression for different population groups and for respondents with varying confidence levels. Lacking confidence to cook using a variety of techniques was more common among respondents with less education (OR 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 10.75) and was less common among respondents who lived with minors (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.53) and other adults (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.78). Lack of confidence to prepare vegetables was associated with being male (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.24 to 4.08), low education (OR 6.60; 95% CI 2.08 to 20.91), lower household income (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.02 to 8.72) and living with other adults (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98). Households bought a greater variety of vegetables on a regular basis when the main chef was confident to prepare them (difference: 18.60; 95% CI 14.66 to 22.54), older (difference: 8.69; 95% CI 4.92 to 12.47), lived with at least one other adult (difference: 5.47; 95% CI 2.82 to 8.12) or at least one minor (difference: 2.86; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.55). Cooking skills may contribute to socioeconomic dietary differences, and may be a useful strategy for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.\ud
\u
Socioeconomic Inequalities in All-cause and Specific-cause Mortality in Australia: 1985-87 and 1995-97
No full textBackground. Socioeconomic inequalities in mortality have been repeatedly observed in Britain, the United States, and Europe, and in some countries, there is evidence that the differentials are widening. This study describes trends in socioeconomic mortality inequality in Australia for males and females aged 0-14, 15-24 and 25-64 years over the period 1985-87 to 1995-97.\ud
Methods. SES was operationalised using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, an area based measure developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Mortality differentials were examined using age-standardised rates, and mortality inequality was assessed using rate ratios, gini coefficients, and a measure of excess mortality.\ud
Results. For both periods, and for each sex/age sub-group, mortality rates were highest in the most disadvantaged areas. The extent and nature of socioeconomic mortality inequality differed for males and females and for each age group: both increases and decreases in mortality inequality were observed, and for some causes, the degree of inequality remained unchanged. If it were possible to reduce death rates among the SES areas to a level equivalent to that of the least disadvantaged area, premature all–cause mortality for males in the three age groups would be lower by 22%, 28% and 26% respectively, and for females, 35%, 70% and 56%.\ud
Conclusions. The mortality burden in the Australian population attributable to socioeconomic inequality is large, and has profound and far-reaching implications in terms of the unnecessary loss of life, the loss of potentially economically productive members of society, and increased costs for the health care system.\ud
Keywords: Socioeconomic status, mortality inequality, Australia, area-based measures
Key influences on cycling for transport
No full textOver recent years, the health, transport and environment\ud
sectors have been increasingly focused on the promotion of transport cycling. From a health perspective, transport\ud
cycling is recognised as a beneficial form of physical\ud
activity as it can be easily integrated into daily living, is done at an intensity that confers health benefits, and is\ud
associated with reductions in mortality and morbidity [1].\ud
From a safety perspective, the risk of a serious cycling\ud
injury decreases as cycling increases [2] as having more\ud
cyclists on roads increases motor vehicle drivers’ awareness\ud
of cyclists and in turn makes cycling safer.\ud
\ud
Whereas cycling for recreation is the fourth most commonly reported physical activity among Australian adults [3], transport cycling is an underutilised travel mode. Approximately 1.3% of journeys to work in Australia are made by bicycle [4]. This low prevalence is mirrored in the\ud
UK and the US, but not in some European countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where over 18% and 26%, respectively, of all journeys are made by bicycle [5].\ud
\ud
In the past decade, concerted efforts have been made by Australian state and local governments to increase cycling rates [6]. Notably, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have implemented policies, increased bicycle commuting infrastructure, and offered information and promotion programs to encourage commuter cycling [6,7]. Governments have also developed comprehensive longterm plans for guiding future cycling strategies, using lessons learned from around the world in developing successful cycling policy and promotion [6,7]. Changes in transport cycling rates in inner cities since these efforts have been implemented are encouraging. In Sydney, census data indicate an 83% increase in the number of people using a bicycle for commuting between 2001 and 2011 [8]. Counts of bicycles being ridden along major cycling commuter routes indicate increases in weekday morning cycling trips in Brisbane (63% increase from 2004 to 2010) [7] and in Melbourne (a 43% increase from 2006 to 2008) [9]. However, bicycle mode share to work has changed little: for example, between 2001 and 2011, it decreased slightly from 1.6% to 1.3% in Brisbane [10,11].\ud
\ud
Researchers have been investigating factors that may be\ud
contributing to low rates of cycling for transport, to inform future policy and programming to encourage transport\ud
cycling. The aim of this paper is to overview our work to\ud
date in this area of research in Queensland
Reported consumption of takeaway food and its contribution to socioeconomic inequalities in body mass index
No full textThe aim of this study was to examine whether takeaway food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and body mass index (BMI). A postal-survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged between 25 and 64 years in Brisbane, Australia during 2009 (response rate 63.7%, N=903). BMI was calculated using self-reported weight and height. Participants reported usual takeaway food consumption, and these takeaway items were categorised into "healthy" and "less healthy" choices. Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education, household income, and occupation. The mean BMI was 27.1kg/m(2) for men and 25.7kg/m(2) for women. Among men, none of the socioeconomic measures were associated with BMI. In contrast, women with diploma/vocational education (β=2.12) and high school only (β=2.60), and those who were white-collar (β=1.55) and blue-collar employees (β=2.83) had significantly greater BMI compared with their more advantaged counterparts. However, household income was not associated with BMI. Among women, the consumption of "less healthy" takeaway food mediated BMI differences between the least and most educated, and between those employed in blue collar occupations and their higher status counterparts. Decreasing the consumption of "less healthy" takeaway options may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in overweight and obesity among women but not men
The contribution of three components of nutrition knowledge to socio-economic differences in food purchasing choices
No full textFree to read\ud
\ud
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.\ud
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\ud
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.\ud
Setting: Brisbane, Australia in 2000.\ud
Subjects: Main household food shoppers (n 1003, response rate 66?4 %), located in fifty small areas (Census Collectors Districts).\ud
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\ud
differences in food purchasing.\ud
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
Does living in a disadvantaged area mean fewer opportunities to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables in the area? Findings from the Brisbane food study
No full textUnderstanding the role environmental factors may play in the dietary behaviours of socioeconomic groups is relevant for efforts to reduce health inequalities. In contrast with international research, earlier findings from the Brisbane Food Study (BFS), Australia, found no relationship between area socioeconomic characteristics and dietary behaviours or location of food shops. This paper examines whether the price and availability of fruits and vegetables are socioeconomically patterned using data from the BFS. Fifty census collection districts were randomly sampled and all local (i.e. within 2.5 km) supermarkets, greengrocers and convenience stores were observed. Little or no differences in price and availability were found on the basis of area socioeconomic characteristics
- …
