Stuart Leske1, Esben Strodl2, Catherine Harper3, Susan Clemens3, Xiang-Yu Hou4. 1. School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road. Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Policy and Evaluation Group, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: s.leske@qcmhr.uq.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road. Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia. 3. Preventive Health Unit, Chief Health Officer Branch, Queensland Government Department of Health, Floor 1, 15 Butterfield Street, Herston 4006, Queensland, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road. Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to explore which demographic and health status variables moderated the relationship between psychological distress and three nutrition indicators: the consumption of fruits, vegetables and takeaway. METHOD: We analysed data from the 2009 Self-Reported Health Status Survey Report collected in the state of Queensland, Australia. Adults (N = 6881) reported several demographic and health status variables. Moderated logistic regression models were estimated separately for the three nutrition indicators, testing as moderators demographic (age, gender, educational attainment, household income, remoteness, and area-level socioeconomic status) and health status indicators (body mass index, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes status). RESULTS: Several significant interactions emerged between psychological distress, demographic (age, area-level socio-economic status, and income level), and health status variables (body mass index, diabetes status) in predicting the nutrition indicators. Relationships between distress and the nutrition indicators were not significantly different by gender, remoteness, educational attainment, high cholesterol status, and high blood pressure status. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between psychological distress and several nutrition indicators differ amongst population subgroups. These findings suggest that in distressed adults, age, area-level socio-economic status, income level, body mass index, and diabetes status may serve as protective or risk factors through increasing or decreasing the likelihood of meeting nutritional guidelines. Public health interventions for improving dietary behaviours and nutrition may be more effective if they take into account the moderators identified in this study rather than using global interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to explore which demographic and health status variables moderated the relationship between psychological distress and three nutrition indicators: the consumption of fruits, vegetables and takeaway. METHOD: We analysed data from the 2009 Self-Reported Health Status Survey Report collected in the state of Queensland, Australia. Adults (N = 6881) reported several demographic and health status variables. Moderated logistic regression models were estimated separately for the three nutrition indicators, testing as moderators demographic (age, gender, educational attainment, household income, remoteness, and area-level socioeconomic status) and health status indicators (body mass index, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes status). RESULTS: Several significant interactions emerged between psychological distress, demographic (age, area-level socio-economic status, and income level), and health status variables (body mass index, diabetes status) in predicting the nutrition indicators. Relationships between distress and the nutrition indicators were not significantly different by gender, remoteness, educational attainment, high cholesterol status, and high blood pressure status. CONCLUSIONS: The associations between psychological distress and several nutrition indicators differ amongst population subgroups. These findings suggest that in distressed adults, age, area-level socio-economic status, income level, body mass index, and diabetes status may serve as protective or risk factors through increasing or decreasing the likelihood of meeting nutritional guidelines. Public health interventions for improving dietary behaviours and nutrition may be more effective if they take into account the moderators identified in this study rather than using global interventions.