| Literature DB >> 32321543 |
Jordan Sky Oestreicher1, Deusilene Pereira do Amaral2, Carlos José Sousa Passos2, Myriam Fillion3, Donna Mergler4, Robert Davidson5, Marc Lucotte4, Christina A Romaña6, Frédéric Mertens2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on changing dietary practices is rare in lower and middle income countries, and understanding the impact of global economic processes on population health and nutrition is important, especially of rural communities. We analyzed the diet of 22 families in Brasília Legal, a riverside community in the Tapajós River region of the Brazilian Amazon, using nonparametric tests to compare dietary surveys taken in 1999 and 2010.Entities:
Keywords: Amazon; Community; Nutrition transition; Rural development; Traditional diet
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32321543 PMCID: PMC7178734 DOI: 10.1186/s12992-020-00564-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Health ISSN: 1744-8603 Impact factor: 4.185
Fig. 1Tapajos River region and location of the community Brasília Legal
Socio-demographic characteristics of household heads participating in the 2010 food intake survey
| Characteristics | Women* ( | Proportion of participants (%) | Men ( | Proportion of participants (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31–40 years | 2 | 9.1 | 0 | 0 |
| 41–50 years | 8 | 36.4 | 6 | 31.6 |
| 51–60 years | 5 | 22.7 | 6 | 31.6 |
| 60+ years | 7 | 31.8 | 5 | 26.3 |
| No Information | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10.5 |
| No formal education | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10.5 |
| Basic education (1 to 4 years) | 5 | 22.7 | 8 | 42.1 |
| Primary school (5 to 8 years) | 11 | 50 | 6 | 31.6 |
| Secondary school (9 to 11 years) | 6 | 27.3 | 2 | 10.5 |
| No information | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5.3 |
* In 2010, three of the households were women-led (i.e., there was no male household head)
Economic strategies and living conditions of the 22 households that participated in both the 1999 and 2010 food intake surveys. The bold type/asterisk (*) indicates that there is a significant difference between the 2 years
| Characteristics | 1999 | 2010 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | (%) | Total | (%) | ||
| Brick house | 10 | 45.5 | 15 | 68.2 | 0.065 |
| Wooden house | 12 | 54.5 | 7 | 31.8 | 0.065 |
| Television | 19 | 86.4 | 21 | 95.5 | 0.24 |
| parabolic antenna | 18 | 81.8 | 21 | 95.5 | 0.12 |
| Radio | 13 | 59.1 | 21 | 95.5 | |
| Well drinking water | 22 | 100.0 | 22 | 100.0 | NS |
| Electricity | 4 | 18.2 | 22 | 100.0 | |
| internal bathroom | 12 | 54.5 | 15 | 68.2 | 0.19 |
| Social assistance (Bolsa Familia) | 0 | 0.0 | 8 | 36.4 | |
| Fishers assistance (Bolsa Pesca) | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 27.3 | |
| Pension | 1 | 4.5 | 10 | 45.5 | |
| Public servant | 9 | 40.9 | 9 | 40.9 | 0.342 |
| Formal employment | 1 | 4.5 | 4 | 18.2 | 0.186 |
| Small business | 5 | 22.7 | 8 | 36.4 | 0.225 |
* In 1999, two of the households were women-led (i.e., there was no male household head) and in 2010 this increased to three households, which is associated to the death or emigration of men
# one-tailed McNemar’s test p-value to test whether socio-economic conditions of the 22 households have improved between 1999 and 2010
Daily food consumption in 1999 and 2010 of participating families, expressed as the total number of days a food item was consumed out of the 15 days that were surveyed
| Food category | 1999 (mean ± SD) | 2010 (mean ± SD) | Trend | Wilcoxon Test ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 12.4 ± 3.6 | 14.7 ± 0.7 | ||
| Bread | 12.7 ± 0.6 | 12.0 ± 2.5 | 0.4441 | |
| Pasta | 1.8 ± 2.5 | 4.3 ± 4.0 | ||
| Cookies/crackers | 1.9 ± 2.9 | 2.0 ± 1.8 | 0.6791 | |
| Cake | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 1.7 ± 2.2 | ||
| Corn | 0.5 ± 1.3 | 1.7 ± 2.0 | ||
| Carnivorous fish | 4.6 ± 3.1 | 3.5 ± 3.6 | 0.1730 | |
| Omnivorous fish | 4.4 ± 2.8 | 6.1 ± 2.9 | 0.0853 | |
| Herbivorous fish | 4.5 ± 3.2 | 4.4 ± 2.2 | 0.8789 | |
| Beef | 4.0 ± 2.4 | 8.7 ± 3.4 | ||
| Local free-range chicken | 1.0 ± 1.3 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | ||
| Frozen farmed chicken | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 2.8 ± 2.6 | ||
| Game meat | 4.5 ± 2.6 | 2.6 ± 2.5 | ||
| Purchased meatsb | 4.4 ± 2.4 | 9.5 ± 3.1 | ||
| Eggs | 2.7 ± 2.1 | 5.5 ± 3.3 | ||
| Milk | 8.0 ± 5.1 | 13.4 ± 1.7 | ||
| Butter | 12.0 ± 3.9 | 13.8 ± 2.0 | 0.0883 | |
| Total | 12.2 ± 2.8 | 12.7 ± 2.9 | 0.8871 | |
| Tomato | 11.4 ± 3.6 | 11.0 ± 4.1 | 0.7510 | |
| Bean | 4.2 ± 3.5 | 8.2 ± 4.2 | ||
| Collard greens | 0.6 ± 1.5 | 2.9 ± 3.9 | ||
| Pepper | 1.6 ± 3.0 | 1.3 ± 2.1 | 0.8613 | |
| Cabbage | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 2.8 | ||
| Cassava flour | 14.7 ± 0.6 | 14.4 ± 0.7 | 0.3139 | |
| Cassava | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 3.8 | ||
| Potato | 0.5 ± 1.2 | 3.0 ± 3.6 | ||
| Parsley | 7.4 ± 5.6 | 11.1 ± 3.6 | ||
| Onion | 13.3 ± 2.3 | 13.3 ± 2.0 | 0.8617 | |
| Garlic | 2.1 ± 4.3 | 9.4 ± 3.4 | ||
| Paprika | 0.3 ± 1.3 | 10.2 ± 3.2 | ||
| Total | 8.9 ± 3.8 | 11.3 ± 3.9 | 0.0582 | |
| Banana | 5.5 ± 4.0 | 9.2 ± 3.9 | ||
| 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.3287 | ||
| Orange | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 3.5 ± 3.6 | ||
| Guava | 1.2 ± 2.3 | 0.6 ± 1.8 | 0.1834 | |
| Mango | 1.8 ± 3.3 | 0.1 ± 0.6 | ||
| 1.4 ± 2.8 | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.1330 | ||
| Watermelon | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 1.8 ± 2.0 | ||
| Avocado | 0.5 ± 1.1 | 0.4 ± 1.0 | 0.9492 | |
| Pineapple | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | ||
| Apple | 0.3 ± 0.8 | 0.7 ± 1.0 | 0.1823 | |
| Papaya | 0.4 ± 1.3 | 1.0 ± 1.9 | 0.2049 | |
| Acerola | 0.7 ± 1.2 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | ||
| Cashew | 2.2 ± 3.2 | 1.4 ± 2.1 | 0.2243 | |
| Grape | 0.1 ± 0.6 | 0.3 ± 0.9 | 0.4652 | |
| Coconut | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.1159 | |
| Coffee | 14.3 ± 1.1 | 13.5 ± 1.9 | 0.1261 | |
| Natural fruit juice | 0.7 ± 2.4 | 2.1 ± 2.8 | ||
| Processed juice | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 2.7 ± 2.7 | ||
| Soft drinks | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 2.1 | ||
Bold p-values indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in consumption between the 2 years (p < 0.05)
aArrows indicate the general trend in daily food consumption over time. The direction of the arrow indicates if the trend is increasing (↑) or decreasing (↓). The number of arrows indicates the amount by which food intake has changed, such that ↑↑ indicates a two-fold increase in consumption, ↑↑↑ indicates a three-fold increase in consumption, etc.
bpurchased beef, pork, and poultry (frozen chicken) were grouped into a single variable