| Literature DB >> 30234881 |
Mayra Pacheco Fernandes1, Renata Moraes Bielemann1, Anaclaudia Gastal Fassa2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with a better quality of the diet of residents of a rural area in Southern Brazil.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30234881 PMCID: PMC6255311 DOI: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2018052000267
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Saude Publica ISSN: 0034-8910 Impact factor: 2.106
Description of the score used to calculate the Adult Diet Quality Index (IQD-A).
| Components of the IQD-A | Score by category of consumption |
|---|---|
| Healthya – fruits, vegetables, beans, milk, meat or chicken, whole food | 0 – Did not eat in the last week |
| 1 – Ate 1–3 days/week | |
| 2 – Ate 4–6 days/week | |
| 3 – Ate everyday | |
| Unhealthyb – fried food, cured and/or preserved food, frozen food (industrialized), soft drinks, artificial juices, sweets | 3 – Did not eat in the last week |
| 2 – Ate 1–3 days/week | |
| 1 – Ate 4–6 days/week | |
| 0 – Ate everyday |
Source: adapted from Gomes et al. (2016).
a Higher mean scores indicate higher frequency of consumption.
b Higher mean scores indicate lower frequency of consumption.
Description of the sample according to the demographic, socioeconomic, and health variables. Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2016. (n = 1,519)
| Variable | n | % (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 734 | 48.3 (46.2–50.3) |
| Female | 785 | 51.7 (49.7–53.7) |
| Age (years) | ||
| 18–24 | 174 | 11.4 (10.0–12.9) |
| 25–39 | 341 | 22.6 (18.9–26.1) |
| 40–59 | 593 | 39.2 (36.8–41.6) |
| 60 or over | 411 | 26.8 (23.4–30.2) |
| Race | ||
| White | 1,296 | 85.1 (79.6–90.6) |
| Non-white | 223 | 14.9 (9.4–20.4) |
| Marital status | ||
| Without partner | 920 | 60.3 (55.9–64.6) |
| With partner | 599 | 39.7 (35.4–44.1) |
| Education level (full years) | ||
| 0–4 | 582 | 38.7 (32.2–45.1) |
| 5–8 | 558 | 36.9 (32.6–41.2) |
| 9 or more | 369 | 24.4 (18.0–30.9) |
| Number of residents | ||
| 1 | 94 | 6.2 (4.5–7.9) |
| 2 | 388 | 25.6 (20.2–31.1) |
| 3 | 395 | 26.4 (22.1–30.6) |
| 4 or more | 635 | 41.8 (33.7–49.9) |
| Socioeconomic level (ABEP) | ||
| A or B | 301 | 20.0 (14.3–25.7) |
| C | 814 | 53.7 (48.2–59.3) |
| D or E | 388 | 26.3 (20.1–32.4) |
| Work with fishing | ||
| No | 1,448 | 95.1 (88.4–101.7) |
| Yes | 64 | 4.9 (-1.7–11.6) |
| Selling of animals | ||
| No | 1,341 | 89.0 (84.4–93.6) |
| Yes | 171 | 11.0 (6.4–15.6) |
| Selling of agricultural products | ||
| No | 1,010 | 67.3 (52.7–82.0) |
| Yes | 502 | 32.7 (18.0–47.3) |
| SAH | ||
| No | 994 | 65.7 (62.2–69.2) |
| Yes | 522 | 34.3 (30.8–37.8) |
| DM | ||
| No | 1,363 | 89.8 (88.3–91.3) |
| Yes | 153 | 10.2 (8.7–11.7) |
ABEP: Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (Brazilian Association of Research Companies); SAH: systemic arterial hypertension; DM: diabetes mellitus
FigureMean of each component according to the categories of the IQD-A. Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2016. (n = 1,519)
Crude analysis between quality of the diet and demographic, economic, and health variables. Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2016. (n = 1,519)
| Variable | Quality of the dieta | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Intermediary | Better | |||
|
|
| |||
| OR (crude) | pc | OR (crude) | pc | |
| Sex | 0.142 | < 0.001 | ||
| Male | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Female | 1.21 (0.93–1.59) | 2.23 (1.62–3.07) | ||
| Age (years) | < 0.001d | < 0.001d | ||
| 18–24 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| 25–39 | 1.54 (1.00–2.39) | 1.78 (1.10–2.90) | ||
| 40–59 | 2.24 (1.54–3.26) | 2.79 (1.85–4.19) | ||
| 60 or over | 2.87 (1.97–4.17) | 7.49 (4.51–12.44) | ||
| Race | 0.320 | 0.126 | ||
| White | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Non-white | 0.82 (0.55–1.23) | 0.74 (0.50–1.09) | ||
| Marital status | 0.011 | 0.047 | ||
| Without partner | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| With partner | 0.70 (0.54–0.92) | 0.77 (0.59–0.99) | ||
| Education level (full years) | 0,161 | 0,161 | ||
| 0–4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| 5–8 | 0.72 (0.52–0.99) | 0.67 (0.49–0.92) | ||
| 9 or more | 0.80 (0.58–1.09) | 0.93 (0.68–1.29) | ||
| Number of residents | 0.698d | 0.001d | ||
| 1 | 1.22 (0.91–1.64) | 2.67 (1.51–4.72) | ||
| 2 | 1.08 (0.74–1.57) | 2.10 (1.33–3.30) | ||
| 3 | 1.01 (0.51–2.00) | 1.71 (1.19–2.48) | ||
| 4 or more | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Socioeconomic level (ABEP)b | 0.545d | 0.049d | ||
| A or B | 1.18 (0.71–1.94) | 1.83 (0.99–3.4) | ||
| C | 1.05 (0.67–1.65) | 1.08 (0.74–1.58) | ||
| D or E | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Work with fishing | 0.001 | 0.018 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 0.48 (0.32–0.71) | 0.27 (0.09–0.78) | ||
| Selling of animals | 0.158 | 0.053 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.33 (0.88–2.01) | 1.55 (0.99–2.41) | ||
| Selling of agricultural products | 0.552 | 0.098 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.11 (0.78–1.58) | 0.61 (0.34–1.10) | ||
| SAH | 0.133 | < 0.001 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.21 (0.94–1.56) | 1.91 (0.54–1.04) | ||
| DM | 0.038 | < 0.001 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.78 (1.03–3.07) | 3.34 (1.96–5.69) | ||
ABEP: Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (Brazilian Association of Research Companies); SAH: systemic arterial hypertension; DM: diabetes mellitus
a Reference category: worst quality of diet.
b Highest number of missing data: 32.
c Multinomial logistic regression.
d Linear trend.
Factors associated with better quality of the diet among adults living in rural areas. Pelotas, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, 2016. (n = 1,519)
| Variable | Quality of the dieta | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Intermediary | Better | |||
|
|
| |||
| OR (adjusted) | pb | OR (adjusted) | pb | |
| Sex | 0.129 | < 0.001 | ||
| Male | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Female | 1.25 (0.93–1.69) | 2.35 (1.61–3.44) | ||
| Age (years) | < 0.001c | < 0.001c | ||
| 18–24 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| 25–39 | 1.57 (1.02–2.42) | 1.82 (1.18–2.80) | ||
| 40–59 | 2.37 (1.64–3.42) | 2.86 (1.86–4.39) | ||
| 60 or over | 3.19 (2.12–4.80) | 7.23 (4.20–12.48) | ||
| Socioeconomic level (ABEP) | 0.769c | 0.001c | ||
| A or B | 1.08 (0.67–1.76) | 2.37 (1.49–3.76) | ||
| C | 0.97 (0.60–1.57) | 1.34 (1.01–1.78) | ||
| D or E | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Number of residents | 0.056 | 0.056 | ||
| 1 | 0.83 (0.39–1.74) | 1.78 (1.22–2.58) | ||
| 2 | 0.85 (0.55–1.31) | 1.40 (0.87–2.26) | ||
| 3 | 1.25 (0.92–1.70) | 1.90 (1.01–3.59) | ||
| 4 or more | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Work with fishing | < 0.001 | 0.005 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 0.48 (0.33–0.70) | 0.30 (0.14–0.67) | ||
| Selling of animals | 0.193 | 0.020 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.33 (0.86–2.05) | 1.84 (1.11–3.06) | ||
| Selling of agricultural products | 0.937 | 0.051 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 0.99 (0.67–1.44) | 0.57 (0.32–1.00) | ||
| DM | 0.199 | 0.003 | ||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 1.41 (0.82–2.40) | 2.13 (1.33–3.42) | ||
ABEP: Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (Brazilian Association of Research Companies); DM: diabetes mellitus
a Reference category: worst quality of diet.
b Multinomial logistic regression.
c Linear trend.