| Literature DB >> 26475742 |
Lalani L Munasinghe1, Noreen Willows2, Yan Yuan3, Paul J Veugelers4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited cutaneous synthesis due to low sun exposure and inadequate dietary intake makes vitamin D supplementation a necessity for many Canadian children. Identification of the factors associated with supplement use is necessary for public health awareness campaigns, but they have not been identified previously. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and the determinants of the use of vitamin D supplements among children in the province of Alberta, Canada.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26475742 PMCID: PMC4609142 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2404-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
General characteristics and the prevalence of supplement use of 10–11 year-old students in Alberta, Canada
| All students, %a ( | Vitamin D supplement users (with or without multivitamin use), % ( | Multivitamin supplement users (with or without vitamin D supplement use), % ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Girls | 53.49 | 51.81 | 54.57 |
| Boys | 46.51 | 48.19 | 45.43 |
| Parental educationb | |||
| Secondary or less | 23.19 | 19.68 | 21.07 |
| College | 33.54 | 35.87 | 34.28 |
| University/graduate | 37.89 | 38.90 | 39.99 |
| Household income | |||
| ≤$50,000 | 13.21 | 12.82 | 11.55 |
| $50,001 – $100,000 | 19.03 | 19.64 | 20.09 |
| ≥$100,001 | 28.89 | 30.07 | 30.81 |
| Non-disclosed/Missingc | 38.87 | 37.48 | 37.55 |
| Region of residence | |||
| Rural | 39.55 | 35.87 | 40.19 |
| Urban | 8.28 | 8.14 | 8.65 |
| Metropolitan | 52.17 | 55.99 | 51.16 |
| Weight statusb | |||
| Under/normal weight | 68.59 | 71.30 | 70.55 |
| Overweight | 20.84 | 18.38 | 19.61 |
| Obese | 7.86 | 7.58 | 6.76 |
| Physical activity level | |||
| 1st Tertile | 33.32 | 27.85 | 30.94 |
| 2nd Tertile | 33.32 | 34.11 | 32.97 |
| 3rd Tertile | 33.36 | 38.04 | 36.09 |
| Energy-adjusted diet quality indexd | |||
| 1st Tertile | 33.32 | 30.76 | 31.09 |
| 2nd Tertile | 33.32 | 34.43 | 34.37 |
| 3rd Tertile | 33.36 | 34.81 | 34.54 |
| Energy-adjusted total dietary vitamin Dd | |||
| 1st Tertile | 33.32 | 33.73 | 32.77 |
| 2nd Tertile | 33.32 | 31.76 | 31.64 |
| 3rd Tertile | 33.36 | 34.51 | 35.59 |
aResults were weighted to represent provincial estimates of the grade five student population (age: 10–11y) in Alberta
b<5 % of missing data
c26.63 % non-disclosed responses (participants were provided option not to disclose their household income) and 12.23 % missing data
d“Energy adjusted” DQI and dietary vitamin D intake were computed as the residuals from the regression model with total energy intake as the independent variable and absolute DQI or dietary vitamin D intake as the dependent variable as per established criteria [26]
Determinants of vitamin D supplement use among 10–11-year-old students in Alberta, Canadaa
| Univariable model | Parsimonious modelb | |
|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95 % CI) | Odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
| Demographic, socio-economic and anthropometric factors | ||
| Gender | ||
| Girls | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Boys | 1.10 (0.91, 1.33) | 1.03 (0.85, 1.25) |
| Parental education | ||
| Secondary or less | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| College | 1.38 (1.06, 1.78)* | 1.35 (1.05, 1.74)* |
| University or graduate | 1.29 (1.00, 1.65)* | 1.21 (0.94, 1.56) |
| Household incomec | ||
| ≤$50,000 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| $50,001–100,000 | 1.08 (0.80, 1.47) | 1.08 (0.79, 1.48) |
| ≥$100,001 | 1.08 (0.80, 1.48) | 1.03 (0.74, 1.43) |
| Region of residence | ||
| Rural | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Urban | 1.11 (0.91, 1.37) | 1.13 (0.92 1.40) |
| Metropolitan | 1.27 (1.03, 1.56)* | 1.32 (1.06, 1.65)* |
| Weight status | ||
| Under/normal weight | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 0.80 (0.64, 1.00)* | 0.82 (0.66, 1.04) |
| Obese | 0.91 (0.60, 1.40) | 0.93 (0.60, 1.43) |
| Lifestyle factors | ||
| Physical activity level | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2nd Tertile | 1.39 (1.09, 1.77)** | 1.39 (1.09, 1.78)** |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.68 (1.33, 2.14)*** | 1.70 (1.33, 2.16)*** |
| Energy-adjusted diet quality indexd | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2nd Tertile | 1.16 (0.91, 1.47) | 1.12 (0.89, 1.42) |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.18 (0.95, 1.46) | 1.10 (0.89, 1.36) |
| Energy-adjusted dietary vitamin D intaked | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | – |
| 2nd Tertile | 0.93 (0.73, 1.19) | |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.03 (0.81, 1.31) | |
aResults were weighted to represent provincial estimates of the grade five student population (age: 10-11y) in Alberta. Vitamin D supplement users were defined as those who used vitamin D supplements irrespective of use of multivitamins
bAdjusted for demographic, socio-economic and anthropometric factors in the table
c26.63 % non-disclosed responses (participants were provided option not to disclose their household income) and 12.23 % missing data
d“Energy adjusted” DQI and dietary vitamin D intake were computed as the residuals from the regression model with total energy intake as the independent variable and absolute DQI or dietary vitamin D intake as the dependent variable as per established criteria [26]
*p <0.05
**p <0.01
***p <0.001
Determinants of use of multivitamins among of 10–11-year-old students in Alberta, Canadaa
| Univariable model | Parsimonious modelb | |
|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95 % CI) | Odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
| Demographic, socio-economic and anthropometric factors | ||
| Gender | ||
| Girls | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Boys | 0.91 (0.75, 1.10) | 0.85 (0.70, 1.03) |
| Parental education | ||
| Secondary or less | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| College | 1.26 (1.02, 1.55)* | 1.25 (1.02, 1.54)* |
| University or graduate | 1.34 (1.07, 1.69)* | 1.33 (1.06, 1.68)* |
| Household incomec | ||
| ≤$50,000 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| $50,001–100,000 | 1.48 (1.10, 2.00)** | 1.43 (1.05, 1.94)* |
| ≥$100,001 | 1.44 (1.09, 1.91)** | 1.29 (0.97, 1.71) |
| Region of residence | ||
| Rural | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Urban | 1.06 (0.81, 1.40) | 1.06 (0.81 1.39) |
| Metropolitan | 0.92 (0.73, 1.17) | 0.95 (0.76, 1.19) |
| Weight status | ||
| Under/normal weight | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Overweight | 0.84 (0.67, 1.05) | 0.88 (0.70, 1.09) |
| Obese | 0.70 (0.50, 0.98)* | 0.76 (0.54, 1.08) |
| Lifestyle factors | ||
| Physical activity level | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2nd Tertile | 1.21 (0.99, 1.47) | 1.20 (0.97, 1.47) |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.55 (1.26, 1.90)*** | 1.56 (1.27, 1.91)*** |
| Energy-adjusted diet quality indexd | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2nd Tertile | 1.22 (0.99, 1.51) | 1.20 (0.97, 1.49) |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.22 (0.97, 1.55) | 1.13 (0.90, 1.43) |
| Energy-adjusted dietary vitamin D intaked | ||
| 1st Tertile | 1.00 | – |
| 2nd Tertile | 0.95 (0.77, 1.17) | |
| 3rd Tertile | 1.16 (0.97, 1.39) | |
aResults were weighted to represent provincial estimates of the grade five student population (age: 10-11y) in Alberta. Multivitamin users were defined as those who used multivitamins irrespective of use of vitamin D supplements
bAdjusted for demographic, socio-economic and anthropometric factors in the table
c26.63 % non-disclosed responses (participants were provided option not to disclose their household income) and 12.23 % missing data
d“Energy adjusted” DQI and dietary vitamin D intake were computed as the residuals from the regression model with total energy intake as the independent variable and absolute DQI or dietary vitamin D intake as the dependent variable as per established criteria [26]
*p <0.05
**p <0.01
***p <0.001