| Literature DB >> 33808637 |
Mónica Monteiro1, Tatiana Fontes1, Cíntia Ferreira-Pêgo2.
Abstract
Nutrition is an essential factor in the prevention and treatment of some chronic diseases. For this reason, the population must know about nutrition, healthy food, and dietetics so that the promotion of healthier eating habits can lead to a consequent decrease in chronic disease incidence. That said, the present study aimed to assess nutrition literacy in the Portuguese population. Three hundred thirty participants aged between 18 and 65 years old were included in an observational, quantitative, and cross-sectional research. After the analysis, it was found that the vast majority of the study population (65.2%) had a good level of nutrition literacy. The participants having upper educational qualifications, following a specific diet, presenting an adequate BMI, having family members trained in the field of nutrition, and those who studied or worked in the field of health sciences reported a higher level of nutrition literacy. In conclusion, it seems to be essential to identify the population groups with the lowest nutrition knowledge so that it would be possible to apply personalized measures and to promote better literacy, reducing the prevalence and incidence of diseases and improving quality of life.Entities:
Keywords: Portuguese population; health literacy; health sciences; nutrition knowledge; nutrition literacy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808637 PMCID: PMC8003506 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063177
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
General characteristics of the studied population categorized by professional area.
| Total Population ( | Health Sciences ( | Other Areas ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Male | 14.8 (49) | 9.6 (9) | 16.9 (40) | 0.089 |
| Female | 85.2 (281) | 90.4 (85) | 83.1 (196) | |
| Age, years | 33.5 (11.8) | 30.1 (9.7) | 34.9 (12.4) | 0.001 |
| Height, m | 1.7 (0.1) | 1.7 (0.1) | 1.7 (0.1) | 0.782 |
| Weight, kg | 67.4 (13.6) | 65.3 (13.5) | 68.2 (13.5) | 0.077 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.7 (5.1) | 23.9 (4.9) | 25.1 (5.1) | 0.062 |
|
| ||||
| <18.5 kg/m2 | 7.3 (24) | 9.6 (9) | 6.4 (15) | 0.450 |
| 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 | 52.4 (173) | 54.3 (51) | 51.7 (122) | |
| ≥25 kg/m2 | 40.3 (133) | 36.2 (34) | 41.9 (99) | |
|
| ||||
| Smoker | 13.0 (43) | 10.6 (10) | 14.0 (33) | 0.088 |
| Ex-smoker | 13.0 (43) | 7.4 (7) | 15.3 (36) | |
| Non Smoking | 73.9 (244) | 81.9 (77) | 70.8 (167) | |
|
| ||||
| Single | 53.0 (175) | 64.9 (61) | 48.3 (114) | 0.052 |
| Married | 41.8 (138) | 31.9 (30) | 45.8 (108) | |
| Divorced | 4.8 (16) | 3.2 (3) | 5.5 (13) | |
| Widower | 0.3 (1) | 0.0 (0) | 0.4 (1) | |
|
| 0.075 | |||
| North | 14.8 (49) | 23.4 (22) | 11.4 (27) | |
| Center | 9.7 (32) | 9.6 (9) | 9.7 (23) | |
| Lisbon Metropolitan Area | 64.8 (214) | 57.4 (54) | 67.8 (160) | |
| Alentejo | 2.1 (7) | 1.1 (1) | 2.5 (6) | |
| South | 2.1 (7) | 2.1 (2) | 2.1 (5) | |
| Madeira archipelago | 4.8 (16) | 3.2 (3) | 5.5 (13) | |
| Azores archipelago | 1.5 (5) | 3.2 (3) | 0.8 (2) | |
|
| ||||
| ≤Secondary education | 39.1 (129) | 29.8 (28) | 42.8 (101) | 0.068 |
| University graduation | 41.8 (138) | 45.7 (43) | 40.3 (95) | |
| Postgraduate studies | 19.1 (63) | 24.5 (23) | 16.9 (40) | |
|
| ||||
| Employee | 55.2 (182) | 46.8 (44) | 58.5 (138) | 0.065 |
| Student | 28.8 (95) | 39.4 (37) | 24.6 (58) | |
| Working-student | 5.8 (19) | 5.3 (5) | 5.9 (14) | |
| Unemployed | 10.3 (34) | 8.5 (8) | 11.0 (26) | |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-Value, for comparisons between groups, was tested by the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate. Abbreviations: BMI, Body Mass Index.
Food-related characteristics according to the professional area.
| Total Population ( | Health Sciences ( | Other Areas ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 11.5 (38) | 19.1 (18) | 8.5 (20) | 0.006 |
|
| 22.4 (74) | 13.8 (13) | 25.8 (61) | 0.018 |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 12.7 (42) | 8.5 (8) | 14.4 (34) | 0.464 |
| Sometimes | 80.6 (266) | 85.1 (80) | 78.8 (186) | |
| No | 6.4 (21) | 6.4 (6) | 6.4 (15) | |
| I don’t know what a food label is | 0.3 (1) | 0.0 (0) | 0.4 (1) | |
Data expressed as a percentage (n). * p-Value, for comparisons between groups, was tested by Pearson’s χ2 test.
The literacy level of the population studied according to the professional area.
| Total Population ( | Health Sciences ( | Other Areas ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.7 (14.8) | 71.4 (16.4) | 67.6 (14.0) | 0.031 |
|
| ||||
| Very good | 6.1 (20) | 13.8 (13) | 3.0 (7) | 0.003 |
| Good | 65.2 (215) | 58.5 (55) | 67.8 (160) | |
| Sufficient | 27.3 (90) | 26.6 (25) | 27.5 (65) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 1.1 (1) | 1.7 (4) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate.
The literacy level of the population studied according to whether they have family members in the nutrition area.
| Total Population ( | Yes | No | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.6 (14.71) | 76.7 (2,35) | 67.6 (14.44) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Very good | 5.9 (20) | 21.1 (8) | 4.0 (12) | <0.001 |
| Good | 65.7 (222) | 65.8 (25) | 65.7 (197) | |
| Sufficient | 26.9 (91) | 13.2 (5) | 28.7 (86) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 0.0 (0) | 1.7 (5) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate.
The literacy level of the population studied according to BMI categories.
| Total Population ( | <18.5 kg/m2 ( | 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 ( | ≥25.0 kg/m2 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.6 (14.7) | 68.4 (22.0) | 70.1 (14.8) | 66.7 (12.7) | 0.124 |
|
| |||||
| Very good | 5.9 (20) | 25.0 (6) | 6.7 (12) | 1.5 (2) | < 0.001 |
| Good | 65.7 (222) | 33.3 (8) | 67.2 (121) | 69.4 (93) | |
| Sufficient | 26.9 (91) | 37.5 (9) | 24.4 (44) | 28.4 (38) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 4.2 (1) | 1.7 (3) | 0.7 (1) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate.
The literacy level of the population studied according to a place of living.
| Total Population ( | North | Center | Lisbon | Alentejo | South | Madeira | Azores ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.6 (14.7) | 72.9 (14.4) | 72.3 (14.9) | 66.65 (14.4) | 71.6 (11.7) | 73.0 (13.2) | 67.1 (15.3) | 85.0 (15.3) | 0.008 |
|
| |||||||||
| Very good | 5.9 (20) | 12.2 (6) | 9.1 (3) | 3.2 (7) | 14.3 (1) | 12.5 (1) | 0.0 (0) | 40.0 (2) | 0.078 |
| Good | 65.7 (222) | 69.4 (34) | 63.6 (21) | 65.0 (143) | 71.4 (5) | 75.0 (6) | 68.8 (11) | 40.0 (2) | |
| Sufficient | 26.9 (91) | 18.4 (9) | 27.3 (9) | 30.0 (66) | 14.3 (1) | 12.5 (1) | 25.0 (4) | 20.0 (1) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 1.8 (4) | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 6.3 (1) | 0.0 (0) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-Value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate.
The literacy level of the population studied according to educational qualifications.
| Total Population ( | ≤Secondary Education ( | University Graduation ( | >Licentiate Degree ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.6 (14.71) | 65.5 (15.10) a | 71.3 (13.62) b | 69.2 (15.26) | 0.005 |
|
| |||||
| Very good | 5.9 (20) | 3.8 (5) | 7.0 (10) | 7.8 (5) | 0.138 |
| Good | 65.7 (222) | 61.1 (80) | 67.8 (97) | 70.3 (45) | |
| Sufficient | 26.9 (91) | 32.8 (43) | 25.2 (36) | 18.8 (12) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 2.3 (3) | 0.0 (0) | 3.1 (2) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-Value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate. Bonferroni post-hoc differences between a and b.
The literacy level of the population studied according to following or not specific dietary patterns.
| Total Population | Following Diets | Not Following Diets | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68.6 (14.71) | 69.0 (14.79) | 68.5 (14.71) | 0.809 |
|
| ||||
| Very good | 5.9 (20) | 4.0 (3) | 6.5 (17) | 0.733 |
| Good | 65.7 (222) | 70.7 (53) | 64.3 (169) | |
| Sufficient | 26.9 (91) | 24.0 (18) | 27.8 (73) | |
| Insufficient | 1.5 (5) | 1.3 (1) | 1.5 (5) |
Data expressed as a percentage (n) or mean (SD) for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. * p-Value, for comparisons between groups, was tested using the t-Student test or Pearson’s χ2 test, as appropriate.