| Literature DB >> 34836008 |
Seok Tyug Tan1, Chin Xuan Tan2, Seok Shin Tan3.
Abstract
Stay-at-home orders have abruptly altered food purchasing behaviour, dietary habits, and food choice motives. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the trajectory of food choice motives and their associations with the weight status of Malaysian youths in the time of COVID-19. Socio-demographic information and anthropometric measurements were self-reported by the respondents, while the food choice motives were assessed using a validated 38-item food choice questionnaire (FCQ). Of the 1013 Malaysian youths, 48.6% gained weight due to the confinement, with an average weight gain of 3.90 ± 2.92 kg. On the other hand, 47.0% to 73.0% of the youths changed their food choice motives in the time of COVID-19. Of the 10 motives, convenience (48.5%) had the largest percentage increase, followed by weight control (47.0%) and health (45.3%). Moreover, the mean scores of health (t = -3.324, p = 0.001), convenience (t = -5.869, p < 0.001), weight control (t = -7.532, p < 0.001), natural content (t = -5.957, p < 0.001), ethical concern (t = -4.419, p < 0.001) and price (t = -3.737, p < 0.001) were significantly higher during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic. Findings from the multinomial regression model revealed that youths highly concerned for weight control were more likely to be in the weight loss category (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.633, Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.230-2.168, p = 0.001). Conversely, those who gained weight due to the pandemic confinement highly valued natural content in foods (AOR = 0.653, CI = 0.481-0.886, p = 0.006) when making their food choices in this unprecedented pandemic. In conclusion, Malaysian youths made healthier food choices to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; food choice motives; lockdown; weight status; youths
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34836008 PMCID: PMC8620045 DOI: 10.3390/nu13113752
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Socio-demographic characteristics and weight status of the respondents.
| Variable | Frequency, | Mean ± Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 361 (35.6) | - |
| Female | 652 (64.4) | |
| Age (years old) | ||
| 18–24 | 817 (80.7) | |
| 25–30 | 196 (19.3) | 22.65 ± 2.46 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Malay | 602 (59.4) | - |
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 960 (94.8) | - |
| Weight status (kg) | ||
| Sustained weight | 151 (14.9) | - |
| Weight loss | 370 (36.5) | −4.70 ± 3.99 |
| BMI status (kg/m2) 1 | ||
| Before the pandemic | ||
| Underweight | 180 (17.8) | 22.72 ± 4.82 a |
| During the pandemic | ||
| Underweight | 158 (15.6) | 22.78 ± 4.68 a |
1 Mean difference was analysed with paired samples t-test. A different letter indicates significant difference at p < 0.05.
Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha of food choice questionnaire.
| Food Choice Motives | Item | Before the Pandemic | During the Pandemic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | ||
| Health | Is high in fibre | 0.824 | 0.935 | 0.896 | 0.954 |
| Is nutritious | 0.884 | 0.923 | |||
| Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals | 0.895 | 0.913 | |||
| Is high in protein | 0.864 | 0.885 | |||
| Keeps me healthy | 0.882 | 0.915 | |||
| Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails, etc. | 0.863 | 0.875 | |||
| Convenience | Is easy to prepare | 0.750 | 0.858 | 0.829 | 0.916 |
| Is easily available in shops/supermarkets | 0.823 | 0.871 | |||
| Can be cooked very simply | 0.842 | 0.906 | |||
| Takes no time to prepare | 0.786 | 0.860 | |||
| Can be bought in shops close to where I live/work | 0.799 | 0.866 | |||
| Weight control | Is low in calories | 0.883 | 0.857 | 0.935 | 0.919 |
| Is low in fat | 0.898 | 0.938 | |||
| Helps me control my weight | 0.866 | 0.910 | |||
| Mood | Cheers me up | 0.804 | 0.917 | 0.885 | 0.946 |
| Helps me cope with stress | 0.881 | 0.904 | |||
| Keeps me awake | 0.759 | 0.819 | |||
| Helps me relax | 0.894 | 0.926 | |||
| Makes me feel good | 0.864 | 0.892 | |||
| Helps me cope with life | 0.854 | 0.903 | |||
| Natural content | Contains no additives | 0.855 | 0.833 | 0.914 | 0.905 |
| Contains natural ingredients | 0.875 | 0.918 | |||
| Contains no artificial ingredients | 0.868 | 0.919 | |||
| Familiarity | Is familiar | 0.821 | 0.784 | 0.868 | 0.852 |
| Is like the food I ate when I was a child | 0.813 | 0.879 | |||
| Is what I usually eat | 0.877 | 0.892 | |||
| Sensory appeal | Tastes good | 0.788 | 0.843 | 0.872 | 0.908 |
| Smells nice | 0.881 | 0.902 | |||
| Has a pleasant structure | 0.797 | 0.881 | |||
| Looks nice | 0.838 | 0.890 | |||
| Ethical concern | Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way | 0.849 | 0.820 | 0.873 | 0.863 |
| Comes from the country I approve of politically | 0.863 | 0.894 | |||
| Has the country of origin clearly marked | 0.862 | 0.893 | |||
| Price | Is not expensive | 0.900 | 0.842 | 0.926 | 0.897 |
| Is cheap | 0.911 | 0.932 | |||
| Is good value for money | 0.801 | 0.872 | |||
| Religion | Has certification from the government | 0.903 | 0.772 | 0.921 | 0.820 |
| Permissible by religion | 0.903 | 0.921 | |||
Trajectory of food choice motives before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| Food Choice Motive | Before the COVID-19 (Mean ± SD) | During the COVID-19 (Mean ± SD) | Trajectory of Food Choice Motive (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased | Sustained | Increased | ∆Food Choice Motive | ||||
| Health | 3.76 ± 0.90 | 3.85 ± 1.00 | −3.324 (0.001) * | 27.6 | 27.0 | 45.3 | 73.0 |
| Convenience | 3.87 ± 0.83 | 4.01 ± 0.93 | −5.869 | 23.7 | 27.8 | 48.5 | 72.2 |
| Weight control | 3.46 ± 1.00 | 3.69 ± 1.10 | −7.532 | 21.8 | 31.2 | 47.0 | 68.8 |
| Mood | 3.84 ± 0.88 | 3.88 ± 0.98 | −1.748 (0.081) | 27.5 | 31.9 | 40.6 | 68.1 |
| Natural content | 3.51 ± 0.95 | 3.66 ± 1.06 | −5.957 | 22.8 | 33.1 | 44.1 | 66.9 |
| Familiarity | 3.52 ± 0.94 | 3.57 ± 1.04 | −1.938 (0.053) | 28.2 | 34.0 | 37.8 | 66.0 |
| Sensory appeal | 3.94 ± 0.82 | 3.91 ± 0.94 | 1.124 (0.263) | 32.3 | 34.7 | 33.0 | 65.3 |
| Ethical concern | 3.47 ± 1.02 | 3.58 ± 1.08 | −4.419 | 24.7 | 35.1 | 40.2 | 64.9 |
| Price | 3.97 ± 0.88 | 4.06 ± 0.99 | −3.737 | 23.2 | 38.1 | 38.7 | 61.9 |
| Religion | 3.90 ± 1.06 | 3.85 ± 1.16 | 1.918 (0.055) | 24.1 | 53.0 | 22.9 | 47.0 |
1 Mean difference was analysed with paired samples t-test. * Significant difference was considered at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Ranking of food choice motives before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 2Ranking of food choice motives during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mean difference in food choice motives before and during the COVID-19 outbreak by weight status.
| Food Choice Motive | Before the COVID-19 | During the COVID-19 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight Status ( | Weight Status ( | |||
| Health | 0.009 | 0.991 | 6.505 | 0.002 |
| Convenience | 0.872 | 0.419 | 5.405 | 0.005 |
| Weight control | 1.053 | 0.349 | 9.384 | <0.001 |
| Mood | 0.481 | 0.619 | 3.479 | 0.031 |
| Natural content | 0.325 | 0.723 | 2.746 | 0.065 |
| Familiarity | 0.844 | 0.430 | 1.042 | 0.353 |
| Sensory appeal | 0.542 | 0.582 | 2.611 | 0.074 |
| Ethical concern | 0.264 | 0.768 | 0.906 | 0.404 |
| Price | 0.626 | 0.535 | 2.759 | 0.064 |
| Religion | 0.144 | 0.866 | 0.605 | 0.547 |
1 Mean difference was tested with one-way ANOVA with Games–Howell post-hoc test. 2 Food choice motive that portrays a p-value of less than 0.25 (p < 0.25) was selected for multinomial logistic regression analysis.
Multinomial logistic regression model of food choice motives during the COVID-19.
| Food Choice Motive | Sustained Weight | Weight Loss | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |||
| Health | 1.139 (0.717–1.809) | 0.582 | 1.291 (0.907–1.838) | 0.156 |
| Convenience | 1.174 (0.751–1.836) | 0.482 | 1.354 (0.967–1.895) | 0.078 |
| Weight control | 1.176 (0.821–1.684) | 0.377 | 1.633 (1.230–2.168) | 0.001 * |
| Mood | 0.833 (0.537–1.291) | 0.414 | 0.920 (0.651–1.300) | 0.637 |
| Natural content | 0.950 (0.632–1.426) | 0.804 | 0.653 (0.481–0.886) | 0.006 * |
| Sensory appeal | 0.784 (0.501–1.227) | 0.287 | 0.828 (0.586–1.169) | 0.283 |
| Price | 1.075 (0.751–1.541) | 0.692 | 0.902 (0.694–1.172) | 0.441 |
Reference group: weight gain. * Significant difference was considered at p < 0.05.