| Literature DB >> 29473894 |
Joanna Kowalkowska1, Marta Lonnie2, Lidia Wadolowska3, Jolanta Czarnocinska4, Marzena Jezewska-Zychowicz5, Ewa Babicz-Zielinska6.
Abstract
Attitudes can be predictors of certain health-related behaviours. The attitudes of young females towards health and taste have not been yet fully examined and their associations with dietary behaviours remain unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate if attitudes are associated with dietary patterns in a representative sample of Polish girls. The study population consisted of 1107 girls, aged 13-21 and living in Poland. Attitudes were assessed using the Health and Taste Attitudes Scale (HTAS) and categorised as negative, neutral or positive. Dietary data was obtained using a Food Frequency Questionnaire. Dietary patterns (DPs), derived previously with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), were 'Traditional Polish', 'Fruit and vegetables', 'Fast food and sweets' and 'Dairy and fats'. The associations between attitudes and DPs were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients and logistic regression. The reference group were girls with neutral attitudes. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, socioeconomic status (SES), and body mass index (BMI). The correlations between attitudes and DPs ranged from -0.28 for attitudes towards health and 'Fast food and sweets' and 'Traditional Polish' DPs to 0.33 for attitudes towards health and the 'Fruit and vegetables' DP (p < 0.05). In the logistic regression analysis, the strongest associations within health-related HTAS subscales were observed between negative attitudes towards natural products and the 'Fast food and sweets' DP (OR: 10.93; 95% CI: 3.32-36.01) and between positive attitudes towards health and the 'Fruit and vegetables' DP (OR: 5.10; 3.11-8.37). The strongest associations within taste-related HTAS subscales were observed between positive attitudes towards craving for sweet foods and the 'Traditional Polish' DP (OR: 1.93; 1.43-2.61) and between positive attitudes towards using food as a reward and the 'Dairy and fats' DP (OR: 2.08; 1.22-3.55) as well as the 'Fast food and sweets' DP (OR: 2.07; 1.14-3.74). Positive attitudes towards health were associated with a pro-healthy dietary pattern characterised by the consumption of fruit and vegetables, while negative attitudes towards natural products as well as a strong craving for sweets and using food as a reward were associated with less healthy dietary patterns. To improve the dietary habits of girls and young women, positive attitudes towards health should be strengthened and supported by emphasizing the sensory values of pro-healthy foods.Entities:
Keywords: HTAS; adolescents; attitudes; dietary patterns; food; girls; health; taste
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29473894 PMCID: PMC5852830 DOI: 10.3390/nu10020254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Categories and scoring of attitudes within Health and Taste Attitudes Scale (HTAS) subscales.
| Scale | Range (Points) | Attitudes (Points) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
| Health-related subscales | ||||
| General health interest | 0–48 | 0–15 | 16–32 | 33–48 |
| Light product interest | 0–36 | 0–11 | 12–24 | 25–36 |
| Natural product interest | 0–36 | 0–11 | 12–24 | 25–36 |
| Taste-related subscales | ||||
| Craving for sweet foods | 0–36 | 0–11 | 12–24 | 25–36 |
| Using food as a reward | 0–36 | 0–11 | 12–24 | 25–36 |
| Pleasure | 0–36 | 0–11 | 12–24 | 25–36 |
Sample characteristics, the GEBaHealth Study (n = 1107) †.
| Sample Characteristics | % | |
|---|---|---|
| 13–15 | 326 | 29.5 |
| 16–18 | 367 | 33.1 |
| 19–21 | 414 | 37.4 |
| 17.3 (2.6) | ||
| Thinnest grade 3 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Thinnest grade 2 | 5 | 0.5 |
| Thinnest grade 1 | 105 | 9.7 |
| Normal weight | 849 | 77.7 |
| Overweight | 115 | 10.5 |
| Obesity | 18 | 1.6 |
| General health interest | ||
| Negative | 123 | 11.1 |
| Neutral | 810 | 73.2 |
| Positive | 174 | 15.7 |
| Light product interest | ||
| Negative | 222 | 20.1 |
| Neutral | 829 | 74.8 |
| Positive | 56 | 5.1 |
| Natural product interest | ||
| Negative | 48 | 4.3 |
| Neutral | 828 | 74.8 |
| Positive | 231 | 20.9 |
| Craving for sweet foods | ||
| Negative | 69 | 6.2 |
| Neutral | 497 | 44.9 |
| Positive | 541 | 48.9 |
| Using food as reward | ||
| Negative | 409 | 36.9 |
| Neutral | 606 | 54.8 |
| Positive | 92 | 8.3 |
| Pleasure | ||
| Negative | 14 | 1.2 |
| Neutral | 771 | 69.7 |
| Positive | 322 | 29.1 |
† All data adjusted for survey weights. SD—standard deviation. ‡ Body weight status—body mass index (BMI) categories determined according to International Obesity Task Force (IOTF) standards [28], i.e., for girls 13–18 years-old according to age-sex-specific BMI cut-offs and for girls >18-years-old according to cut-offs for girls at age 18; BMI sample size is smaller due to missing data (n = 1092).
Figure 1Spearman’s correlation coefficients for attitudes towards health and taste and dietary patterns (DPs) of girls and young women, the GEBaHealth Study (n = 1107); All data adjusted for survey weights. Statistically significant: * p < 0.05.
Adjusted odds ratios (OR; 95% CI) for dietary patterns depending on attitudes towards health and taste in girls and young women in the GEBaHealth Study (n = 1107) †.
| Attitudes towards Health and Taste | Dietary Patterns | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ‘Traditional Polish’ | ‘Fruit and Vegetables’ | ‘Fast Food and Sweets’ | ‘Dairy and Fats’ | |||||||||
| Bottom Tertile | Middle Tertile | Upper Tertile | Bottom Tertile | Middle Tertile | Upper Tertile | Bottom Tertile | Middle Tertile | Upper Tertile | Bottom Tertile | Middle Tertile | Upper Tertile | |
| negative | Reference | 1.93 * (1.14; 3.27) | 2.63 *** (1.55; 4.45) | 1.00 | 0.70 (0.47; 1.06) | 0.33 **** (0.20; 0.56) | 1.00 | 2.04 * (1.18; 3.55) | 3.39 **** (2.00; 5.75) | 1.00 | 0.73 (0.47; 1.13) | 0.72 (0.46; 1.12) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 0.35 **** (0.23; 0.52) | 0.40 **** (0.27; 0.59) | 1.00 | 2.98 **** (1.77; 4.99) | 5.10 **** (3.11; 8.37) | 1.00 | 0.54 *** (0.37; 0.77) | 0.32 **** (0.21; 0.49) | 1.00 | 0.48 *** (0.32; 0.72) | 0.76 (0.52; 1.11) |
| negative | Reference | 0.68 * (0.48; 0.97) | 0.88 (0.62; 1.24) | 1.00 | 0.65 * (0.45; 0.92) | 0.94 (0.67; 1.32) | 1.00 | 0.86 (0.61; 1.22) | 0.82 (0.58; 1.16) | 1.00 | 1.04 (0.73; 1.47) | 1.04 (0.74; 1.48) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 0.86 (0.48; 1.54) | 0.55 (0.29; 1.07) | 1.00 | 0.86 (0.45; 1.65) | 1.31 (0.71; 2.41) | 1.00 | 0.70 (0.37; 1.32) | 0.99 (0.55; 1.79) | 1.00 | 1.04 (0.56; 1.94) | 0.98 (0.49; 1.94) |
| negative | Reference | 2.86 * (1.24; 6.59) | 2.51 * (1.03; 6.14) | 1.00 | 0.70 (0.36; 1.36) | 0.49 (0.23; 1.03) | 1.00 | 3.18 (0.87; 11.59) | 10.93 **** (3.32; 36.01) | 1.00 | 0.91 (0.44; 1.88) | 1.17 (0.58; 2.36) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 0.74 (0.53; 1.02) | 0.62 ** (0.44; 0.87) | 1.00 | 1.59 * (1.10; 2.29) | 2.23 **** (1.57; 3.18) | 1.00 | 0.63 ** (0.45; 0.87) | 0.49 **** (0.35; 0.70) | 1.00 | 1.00 (0.64; 1.57) | 1.19 (0.85; 1.67) |
| negative | Reference | 0.80 (0.46; 1.39) | 0.70 (0.38; 1.29) | 1.00 | 1.39 (0.78; 2.49) | 0.93 (0.50; 1.70) | 1.00 | 0.88 (0.52; 1.51) | 0.55 (0.29; 1.03) | 1.00 | 0.79 (0.46; 1.37) | 0.48 * (0.26; 0.91) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 1.30 (0.97; 1.73) | 1.93 **** (1.43; 2.61) | 1.00 | 1.08 (0.81; 1.44) | 0.78 (0.59; 1.04) | 1.00 | 1.50 ** (1.12; 2.00) | 1.84 **** (1.38; 2.45) | 1.00 | 1.14 (0.85; 1.52) | 1.57 ** (1.18; 2.09) |
| negative | Reference | 0.78 (0.58; 1.04) | 0.76 (0.56; 1.02) | 1.00 | 1.09 (0.81; 1.46) | 1.18 (0.88; 1.59) | 1.00 | 0.69 * (0.52; 0.92) | 0.35 **** (0.26; 0.47) | 1.00 | 0.75 (0.56; 1.01) | 0.72 * (0.53; 0.96) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 1.07 (0.63; 1.83) | 1.07 (0.62; 1.85) | 1.00 | 1.04 (0.64; 1.72) | 0.67 (0.39; 1.17) | 1.00 | 1.65 (0.91; 3.01) | 2.07 * (1.14; 3.74) | 1.00 | 0.95 (0.52; 1.76) | 2.08 ** (1.22; 3.55) |
| negative | Reference | 0.41 (0.12; 1.33) | 0.31 (0.08; 1.19) | 1.00 | 0.91 (0.32; 2.60) | 0.25 (0.05; 1.21) | 1.00 | 1.61 (0.50; 5.13) | 0.92 (0.24; 3.51) | 1.00 | 0.27 * (0.07; 1.00) | 0.35 (0.10; 1.30) |
| neutral | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| positive | Reference | 1.16 (0.85; 1.59) | 1.20 (0.87; 1.64) | 1.00 | 1.59 ** (1.17; 2.18) | 1.36 (0.99; 1.87) | 1.00 | 1.10 (0.81; 1.50) | 1.16 (0.86; 1.57) | 1.00 | 0.86 (0.63; 1.18) | 1.35 (1.00; 1.83) |
† All data adjusted for survey weights. OR—odds ratio adjusted for three variables: age (years), SES (continuous variable measured as socioeconomic status (SES) index which was calculated from four single components: mother’s education, father’s education, economic status, description of household), BMI (as categorical variable according to IOTF standards [28], i.e., for girls 13–18 years old according to age/sex specific BMI cut-offs and for girls >18-years-old according to cut-offs for girls at age 18). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001 (Wald’s test).