| Literature DB >> 22930284 |
Tilakavati Karupaiah1, Winnie Chee Siew Swee, Siew Ying Liew, Boon Koon Ng, Karuthan Chinna.
Abstract
Diet-related non-communicable disease (DR-NCD) occurrence is a serious problem amongst Malaysian women and urbanization is probably a challenge to their achieving the nutritional environment conducive to healthy eating. This case study aimed to determine diet quality of an urban community using women respondents from high rise dwellings in Kuala Lumpur. The sample consisted of 135 households and a healthy eating index (HEI) scale was used to evaluate the women's diet quality. A total of 128 women (Malays = 45, Chinese = 56, Indian = 27) participated. Total HEI score was significantly different (P < 0.05) within ethnicity (Indians = 75.7 ± 8.1 <Malays = 80.5 ± 7.4 <Chinese = 80.1 ± 8.1) and affected by component scores for fruit (range 3.8-6.2, P = 0.044), sodium (range 7.8-9.0, P = 0.006) and food variety (range 9.3-9.9, P = 0.001). Dairy foods rated poorly (range 2.0-3.9, P > 0.05) regardless of ethnicity. Income strata (ρ = 0.159, P = 0.048) and eating out frequency (ρ = -0.149, P = 0.046) also independently affected HEI scores. Income negatively correlated with sodium restriction score (ρ = -0.294, P = 0.001) but positively with cereals (ρ = 0.181; P = 0.025), fruits (ρ = 0.178; P = 0.022), dairy products (ρ = 0.198; P = 0.013) and food variety (ρ = 0.219, P = 0.007). Decreased vegetable intake (ρ = -0.320; P < 0.001) and sodium excess (ρ = -0.135, P = 0.065) were associated with eating out frequency and poor HEI scores. This case study suggests health promotion for DR-NCD prevention is needed at the community level to improve diet quality of urban women.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 22930284 PMCID: PMC3547240 DOI: 10.1007/s10900-012-9597-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Community Health ISSN: 0094-5145
Dietary determinants for HEI scoring
| Componentsa | Range of score | Scoring criteria | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | Minimum | ||
|
| |||
| Cereals | 0–10 | 8–12 servings | 0 servings consumed |
| Vegetables | 0–10 | 3 servings | 0 servings consumed |
| Fruits | 0–10 | 2 servings | 0 servings consumed |
| Dairy products | 0–10 | 1–2 servings | 0 servings consumed |
| Protein foodsb | 0–10 | 2–3 servings | 0 servings consumed |
|
| |||
| Total fat | 0–10 | ≤30 % total energy intake | ≥45 % total energy intake |
| Saturated fat | 0–10 | ≤7 % total energy intake | ≥15 % total energy intake |
| Cholesterol | 0–10 | ≤300 mg | ≥450 mg |
| Sodium | 0–10 | ≤2,400 mg | ≥4,800 mg |
|
| |||
| Food variety | 0–10 | Inclusion of ≥ 16 food varieties over 3 days | ≤ 6 food varieties over 3 days |
Adapted from Kennedy et al [12]
aBased on Malaysian food pyramid [13]
bMeat/poultry/ seafood/ legumes
Sociodemographic characteristics of study subjects
| Characteristics | Subjects (n = 128) | |
|---|---|---|
| ‘n’ | % | |
| Age (years) | ||
| 21–30 | 19 | 14.8 |
| 31–50 | 85 | 66.4 |
| 51–59 | 19 | 14.8 |
| >60 | 5 | 3.9 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Malays | 45 | 35.2 |
| Chinese | 56 | 43.7 |
| Indians | 27 | 21.1 |
| Religion | ||
| Muslim | 45 | 35.2 |
| Buddhist | 50 | 39.0 |
| Hindu | 26 | 20.3 |
| Christians | 7 | 5.5 |
| Educational status | ||
| Primary | 21 | 16.4 |
| Mid-High school | 24 | 18.8 |
| Completed high school | 55 | 43.5 |
| Diploma/ degree | 27 | 21.1 |
| Employment | ||
| Government institutions | 10 | 7.8 |
| Private institutions | 35 | 27.3 |
| Self-employed | 12 | 9.4 |
| Housewife | 71 | 55.5 |
| Monthly income levels | ||
| <RM 1500 | 31 | 24.2 |
| RM 1500–RM 3500 | 63 | 49.2 |
| RM 3500–RM 5500 | 20 | 15.6 |
| >RM 5500 | 14 | 11.0 |
1 US Dollar = RM 3.15
Nutrient intake data of subjects by age categories (n = 128)
| Nutrient | 19–29 years (n = 19) | 30–50 years (n = 85) | 51–59 years (n = 19) | 60–65 years (n = 5) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | RNI | % RNI | Mean ± SD | RNI | % RNI | Mean ± SD | RNI | % RNI | Mean ± SD | RNI | % RNI | |
| Energy (kcal) | 1,867 ± 175 | 2,000 | 93 | 1,838 ± 229 | 2,180 | 84 | 1,706 ± 109 | 2,180 | 78 | 1,703 ± 55 | 1,780 | 96 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 260 ± 37 | – | – | 260 ± 43 | – | – | 248 ± 40 | – | – | 241 ± 15 | – | – |
| Protein (g) | 71 ± 9 | 55 | 129 | 71 ± 11 | 55 | 129 | 71 ± 11 | 55 | 129 | 60 ± 11 | 51 | 118 |
| Fat (g) | 53 ± 4 | – | – | 53 ± 7 | – | – | 50 ± 5 | – | – | 49 ± 5 | – | – |
| Vitamin A (μg) | 832 ± 247 | 500 | 166 | 732 ± 281 | 500 | 146 | 699 ± 262 | 500 | 140 | 972 ± 248 | 500 | 194 |
| Thiamine (mg) | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 1.1 | 73 | 1.0 ± 0.7 | 1.1 | 92 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 1.1 | 91 | 2.1 ± 2.8 | 1.1 | 191 |
| Riboflavine (mg) | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.1 | 118 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 1.1 | 79 | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 1.1 | 136 | 2.6 ± 3.6 | 1.1 | 236 |
| Niacin (mg) | 14 ± 2.8 | 14 | 100 | 14 ± 3.4 | 14 | 100 | 15 ± 2.7 | 14 | 107 | 14 ± 1.3 | 14 | 100 |
| Vitamin C (mg) | 88 ± 45 | 70 | 126 | 100 ± 74 | 70 | 143 | 104 ± 46 | 70 | 149 | 83 ± 65 | 70 | 119 |
| Calcium (mg) | 489 ± 145 | 800 | 61 | 462 ± 138 | 800 | 58 | 511 ± 137 | 1,000 | 51 | 474 ± 147 | 1,000 | 47 |
| Iron (mg) | 15 ± 4 | 29 | 52 | 15 ± 4 | 29 | 52 | 17 ± 5 | 11 | 155 | 15 ± 5 | 11 | 136 |
| Sodium (mg) | 2,833 ± 431 | – | – | 2,724 ± 517 | – | – | 2,709 ± 349 | – | – | 2,683 ± 435 | – | – |
| Dietary fibre (g) | 17.36 ± 8.40 | – | – | 20.07 ± 8.08 | – | – | 21.35 ± 10.11 | – | – | 21.01 ± 6.77 | – | – |
By comparison with the Malaysian recommended nutrient intake (RNI) for adults women where applicable [26]
Total and component HEI scores by ethnic groups
| HEI categories | Mean servings achieved day−1 | Total | Malay | Chinese | Indian |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 128) | (n = 45) | (n = 56) | (n = 27) | |||
| Total HEI score | 79.3 ± 8.0 | 80.5 ± 7.4 | 80.1 ± 8.1 | 75.7 ± 8.1 | 0.026a,* | |
| HEI rating | ||||||
| Poor | – | |||||
| Improvement required | 73.6 ± 5.7 | |||||
| Good quality | 86.4 ± 3.4 | |||||
| Grouping A | ||||||
| Cereals | 7 | 8.5 ± 1.3 | 8.6 ± 1.3 | 8.3 ± 1.3 | 8.7 ± 1.2 | 0.144b |
| Vegetables | 2 | 7.4 ± 3.0 | 7.0 ± 3.3 | 8.0 ± 2.7 | 7.1 ± 2.8 | 0.164b |
| Fruits | 1 | 5.6 ± 4.1 | 6.2 ± 3.9 | 6.0 ± 4.0 | 3.8 ± 4.0 | 0.044b,* |
| Dairy products | 0.3 | 3.1 ± 3.8 | 3.9 ± 4.0 | 2.9 ± 3.6 | 2.0 ± 3.3 | 0.096b |
| Meat & legumes | 2 | 9.4 ± 1.3 | 9.6 ± 0.8 | 9.5 ± 1.1 | 8.7 ± 2.1 | 0.057b |
| Grouping B | ||||||
| Total fat | 26 % en | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 9.9 ± 0.3 | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 0.455b |
| Saturated fat | 8 % en | 8.2 ± 2.0 | 8.2 ± 1.9 | 8.5 ± 1.9 | 7.7 ± 2.3 | 0.143b |
| Cholesterol | 237 mg | 9.1 ± 2.1 | 8.7 ± 2.7 | 9.3 ± 1.7 | 9.4 ± 1.4 | 0.723b |
| Sodium | 2,737 mg | 8.4 ± 1.7 | 8.6 ± 1.5 | 7.8 ± 1.9 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 0.006b,* |
| Grouping C | ||||||
| Food variety | 13 types/ 3 days | 9.7 ± 0.7 | 9.6 ± 0.8 | 9.9 ± 0.3 | 9.3 ± 1.1 | 0.001b,* |
Scores are reported as mean ± SD
* Significance at P < 0.05
a ANOVA tested significant for overall total HEI scores by racial grouping
b Kruskal-Wallis testing for component HEI scores by racial grouping
Fig. 1Distribution of racial groups as per HEI rating to determine diet quality. Distribution by ethnicity as per HEI rating indicates ~70 % of Indian diets were categorised as ‘need improvement’ compared to 50 % of Chinese and 53 % of Malays. HEI healthy eating index
Other factors correlating with HEI scores
| HEI components | Monthly income | Eating out | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman rho (ρ) |
| Spearman rho (ρ) |
| |
| Total HEI score | 0.159 | 0.048* | −0.149 | 0.046* |
| Grouping A | ||||
| Cereals | 0.181 | 0.025* | 0.074 | 0.203 |
| Vegetables | 0.060 | 0.252 | −0.320 | 0.000* |
| Fruits | 0.178 | 0.022* | −0.004 | 0.483 |
| Dairy products | 0.198 | 0.013* | 0.071 | 0.214 |
| Meat and legumes | 0.089 | 0.159 | 0.037 | 0.339 |
| Grouping B | ||||
| Total fat | 0.056 | 0.263 | −0.023 | 0.397 |
| Saturated fat | −0.060 | 0.207 | −0.072 | 0.209 |
| Cholesterol | 0.030 | 0.370 | −0.043 | 0.314 |
| Sodium | −0.294 | 0.001* | −0.135 | 0.065 |
| Grouping C | ||||
| Food variety | 0.219 | 0.007* | 0.006 | 0.472 |
Analysis between factors by Spearman rank correlation coefficients to test non-nominally distributed data. * Statistical significance for P < 0.05
Fig. 2HEI scoring for diet quality as per income strata. Indicates income strata and diet quality categories. Subjects not achieving satisfactory HEI scores (<80) were more likely to be in the lower income brackets (