| Literature DB >> 29077031 |
Keren Papier1,2, Susan Jordan3,4, Catherine D'Este5,6, Cathy Banwell7, Vasoontara Yiengprugsawan8,9, Sam-Ang Seubsman10, Adrian Sleigh11.
Abstract
In recent decades, a health-risk transition with changes in diet and lifestyle in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) led to an emergence of chronic diseases. These trends in Southeast Asian LMICs are not well studied. Here, we report on transitional dietary patterns and their socio-demographic predictors in Thai adults. Dietary data in 2015 were from a random sub-sample (N = 1075) of 42,785 Thai Cohort Study (TCS) members who completed all three TCS surveys (2005, 2009, 2013). Principle Component Analysis identified dietary patterns and multivariable linear regression assessed associations (Beta estimates (ß) and confidence intervals (CIs)) between socio-demographic factors and dietary intake pattern scores. Four dietary patterns emerged: Healthy Transitional, Fatty Western, Highly Processed, and Traditional. In women, higher income (≥30,001 Baht/month vs. ≤10,000) and managerial work (vs. office assistant) was associated with lower scores for Traditional (ß = -0.67, 95% CI -1.15, -0.19) and Fatty Western diets (ß = -0.60, 95% CI -1.14, -0.05), respectively. University education associated with lower Highly Processed (ß = -0.57, 95% CI -0.98, -0.17) and higher Traditional diet scores (ß = 0.42, 95% CI 0.03, 0.81). In men and women, urban residence associated with higher Fatty Western and lower Traditional diets. Local policy makers should promote healthy diets, particularly in urban residents, in men, and in low-SEP adults.Entities:
Keywords: Asian cohort; diet patterns; nutrition transition; principle component analysis; socioeconomic status; urban
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29077031 PMCID: PMC5707645 DOI: 10.3390/nu9111173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Percentage of Thai adults consuming each food group per week by sex. * χ2 p value < 0.05 when comparing weekly food group consumption frequency by sex.
Factor loadings * for four dietary patterns identified among Thai adults.
| Soy milk | 0.41 | - | - | - |
| Beans | 0.37 | - | - | - |
| Fruit | 0.34 | - | - | - |
| Milk | 0.32 | - | - | - |
| Brown rice | 0.30 | - | - | - |
| Wheat | 0.30 | - | - | - |
| Fatty meat | - | 0.38 | - | - |
| Deep fried and western food | - | 0.36 | - | - |
| Meat | - | 0.34 | - | - |
| Rice noodles | - | 0.33 | - | - |
| Food with coconut milk | - | 0.30 | - | - |
| Fruit with added sugar | - | - | 0.49 | - |
| Processed fruit | - | - | 0.44 | - |
| Sweet snacks | - | - | 0.38 | - |
| Meat products (processed) | - | - | 0.35 | - |
| Fermented fish or soybean | - | - | - | 0.53 |
| Glutinous rice | - | - | - | 0.47 |
| Bamboo shoots | - | - | - | 0.40 |
| Chilli dipping sauce | - | - | - | 0.33 |
| Dietary variance explained % | 10.9 | 10.8 | 8.5 | 6.7 |
| Deep fried and western food | 0.35 | - | - | - |
| Fatty meat | 0.35 | - | - | - |
| Food with coconut milk | 0.31 | - | - | - |
| Soy milk | - | 0.37 | - | - |
| Beans | - | 0.37 | - | - |
| Fish | - | 0.36 | - | - |
| Milk | - | 0.30 | - | - |
| Processed fruit | - | - | 0.44 | - |
| Wheat | - | - | 0.34 | - |
| Fruit or vegetable juice | - | - | 0.33 | - |
| Salty snacks | - | - | 0.31 | - |
| Fermented fish or soybean | - | - | - | 0.49 |
| Glutinous rice | - | - | - | 0.47 |
| Bamboo shoots | - | - | - | 0.46 |
| Chilli dipping sauce | - | - | - | 0.31 |
| Dietary variance explained % | 11.2 | 9.7 | 7.8 | 7.1 |
* Only factor loadings >0.30 or <−0.30 are displayed in the body of the table. These represent correlation coefficients between individual food groups and each dietary pattern.
Multivariable linear regression of socio-demographic predictors in 2013 and dietary intake pattern scores in 2015 in 486 Thai men.
| Predictors | Beta Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Transitional | Fatty Western | Highly Processed | Traditional | |
| ≤10,000 | reference | reference | ** | reference |
| 10,001–20,000 | −0.20 (−0.79, 0.40) | −0.09 (−0.68, 0.51) | 0.06 (−0.39, 0.53) | |
| 20,001–30,000 | −0.05 (−0.67, 0.57) | 0.06 (−0.55, 0.68) | 0.01 (−0.47, 0.49) | |
| ≥30,001 | 0.66 (−0.04, 1.36) | −0.16 (−0.86, 0.53) | −0.36 (−0.90, 0.18) | |
| University | −0.35 (−0.82, 0.11) | −0.24 (−0.70, 0.22) | 0.05 (−0.30, 0.41) | |
| Below university | - | - | reference | - |
| <10,000, university | - | - | −1.02 (−1.78, −0.25) | - |
| 10,001–20,000, university | - | - | 0.07 (−0.54, 0.69) | - |
| 20,001–30,000, university | - | - | −0.11 (−0.86, 0.64) | - |
| ≥30,001, university | - | - | 0.95 (−0.20, 2.09) | - |
| Manual worker | 0.09 (−0.48, 0.67) | 0.52 (−0.05, 1.09) | 0.34 (−0.14, 0.82) | 0.04 (−0.41, 0.48) |
| Office assistant | reference | reference | reference | reference |
| Skilled worker | 0.26 (−0.44, 0.96) | 0.19 (−0.50, 0.88) | 0.26 (−0.32, 0.84) | −0.01 (−0.54, 0.54) |
| Professional | 0.01 (−0.50, 0.51) | −0.07 (−0.57, 0.43) | 0.03 (−0.39, 0.45) | −0.06 (−0.45, 0.33) |
| Manager | 0.38 (−0.15, 0.92) | 0.19 (−0.34, 0.72) | 0.18 (−0.26, 0.63) | 0.25 (−0.16, 0.66) |
| Rural-rural | reference | reference | reference | reference |
| Urban-rural | −0.17 (−0.98, 0.63) | −0.18 (−0.98, 0.62) | −0.20 (−0.87, 0.46) | −0.77 (−1.39, −0.15) |
| Rural-Urban | 0.44 (−0.18, 1.05) | 0.29 (−0.32, 0.90) | 0.24 (−0.26, 0.75) | −0.74 (−1.21, −0.26) |
| Urban-Urban | 0.19 (−0.21, 0.60) | 0.59 (0.20, 1.00) | 0.14 (−0.19, 0.48) | −1.00 (−1.31, −0.68) |
All Beta coefficients are adjusted for age and for each other. ** The p for interaction for education x income was statistically significant for the highly processed diet pattern and therefore the main effect associations between income and education with this pattern are not displayed.
Multivariable linear regression of socio-demographic predictors in 2013 and dietary intake pattern scores in 2015 in 589 Thai women.
| Predictors | Beta Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Transitional | Fatty Western | Highly Processed | Traditional | |
| ≤10,000 | reference | reference | reference | reference |
| 10,001–20,000 | −0.20 (−0.64, 0.24) | −0.01 (−0.45, 0.43) | −0.06 (−0.44, 0.31) | −0.20 (−0.55, 0.16) |
| 20,001–30,000 | −0.21 (−0.75, 0.33) | −0.22 (−0.76, 0.32) | 0.26 (−0.20, 0.72) | −0.62 (−1.06, −0.18) |
| ≥30,001 | −0.37 (−0.96, 0.22) | 0.03 (−0.56, 0.62) | 0.48 (−0.01, 0.98) | −0.67 (−1.15, −0.19) |
| University | −0.02 (−0.51, 0.46) | −0.04 (−0.52, 0.44) | −0.57 (−0.98, −0.17) | 0.42 (0.03, 0.81) |
| Manual worker | −0.22 (−0.76, 0.33) | −0.09 (−0.63, 0.46) | −0.15 (−0.61, 0.31) | −0.02 (−0.46, 0.42) |
| Office assistant | reference | reference | reference | reference |
| Skilled worker | 0.18 (−0.69, 1.05) | 0.09 (−0.78, 0.95) | 0.05 (−0.68, 0.78) | −0.01 (−0.71, 0.69) |
| Professional | 0.08 (−0.30, 0.47) | −0.48 (−0.86, −0.11) | 0.06 (−0.26, 0.38) | 0.08 (−0.23, 0.38) |
| Manager | 0.28 (−0.26, 0.83) | −0.60 (−1.14, −0.05) | −0.13 (−0.59, 0.33) | 0.26 (−0.18, 0.70) |
| Rural-rural | reference | reference | reference | reference |
| Urban-rural | 0.12 (−0.47, 0.70) | 0.58 (−0.01, 1.16) | 0.12 (−0.37, 0.62) | −0.22 (−0.69, 0.25) |
| Rural-Urban | 0.08 (−0.46, 0.61) | 0.55 (0.02, 1.08) | 0.27 (−0.18, 0.72) | −0.60 (−1.04, −0.17) |
| Urban-Urban | −0.10 (−0.46, 0.27) | 0.68 (0.32, 1.04) | 0.44 (0.13, 0.75) | −0.68 (−0.98, −0.39) |
All Beta coefficients are adjusted for age and for each other.