| Literature DB >> 35055492 |
Zeying Huang1, Haijun Li2, Jiazhang Huang1.
Abstract
The nutrition facts table is a nutrition labeling tool designed to inform consumers of food nutritional contents and enable them to make healthier choices by comparing the nutritional values of similar foods. However, its adoption level is considerably low in China. This study employed the Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) algorithm to explore the factors associated with respondents' adoption of nutrition facts table to compare the nutritional values of similar foods. Data were gathered through a nationally representative online survey of 1500 samples. Results suggested that consumers' comprehension of the nutrition facts table was a direct explanatory factor for its use. The usage was also indirectly explained by people's nutrition knowledge, the usage of nutrition facts table by their relatives and friends, and their focus on a healthy diet. Therefore, to increase the use of nutrition facts table by Chinese consumers, the first consideration should be given to enhancing consumers' comprehension of the labeling.Entities:
Keywords: Chi-squared automatic interaction detection; decision tree; nutrition facts table; nutritional value; prepackaged food
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055492 PMCID: PMC8775507 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19020673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Variables initially identified through a literature review.
| Variables | Definition | Samples | Percentage% | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of nutritional value | No | 914 | 60.93 | Webb [ |
| Yes | 586 | 39.07 | ||
| Gender | Male | 629 | 41.93 | Gupta & Dharni [ |
| Female | 817 | 58.07 | ||
| Age | 17 years old or below | 300 | 20.00 | Govindasamy & Italia [ |
| 18–44 years old | 1002 | 66.80 | ||
| 45–59 years old | 189 | 12.60 | ||
| 60 years old or above | 9 | 0.60 | ||
| Marriage | Unmarried | 693 | 46.20 | McLean-Meyinsse [ |
| Married | 807 | 53.80 | ||
| Education | Primary school or below | 3 | 0.20 | Krešić & Mrduljaš [ |
| Junior school | 36 | 42.40 | ||
| Senior school | 373 | 34.87 | ||
| Junior college or undergraduate | 992 | 18.13 | ||
| Postgraduate or above | 96 | 4.40 | ||
| BMI a | Underweight (<18.5) | 275 | 18.33 | Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Health, PRC [ |
| Normal (18.5–23.9) | 939 | 62.60 | ||
| Overweight (24–28) | 211 | 14.07 | ||
| Obese (>28) | 75 | 0.05 | ||
| Annual household incomeafter-tax (Yuan) b | <10,000 | 127 | 8.47 | McLean-Meyinsse [ |
| 10,000–49,999 | 319 | 21.27 | ||
| 50,000–99,999 | 315 | 21.00 | ||
| 100,000–149,999 | 299 | 19.92 | ||
| 150,000–199,999 | 226 | 15.07 | ||
| ≥200,000 | 214 | 14.27 | ||
| Live in urban areas | No | 450 | 30 | Govindasamy & Italia [ |
| Yes | 1050 | 70 | ||
| Health self-rating | Very poor | 5 | 0.34 | Zhang et al., [ |
| Poor | 23 | 1.53 | ||
| General | 317 | 21.13 | ||
| Good | 772 | 51.47 | ||
| Very good | 383 | 25.53 | ||
| Nutrition knowledge level c | Low | 106 | 7.07 | Christoph et al., [ |
| Medium | 970 | 64.67 | ||
| High | 397 | 26.47 | ||
| Very high | 27 | 1.80 | ||
| Whether to focus on an individual healthy diet | No | 124 | 8.27 | Cooke & Papadak [ |
| Yes | 1376 | 91.73 | ||
| Whether to have limited foods to prevent obesity | No | 1069 | 71.27 | Frieden et al., [ |
| Yes | 431 | 28.73 | ||
| Comprehension of nutrition facts table | Very low | 40 | 2.67 | Hobin et al., [ |
| Low | 144 | 9.60 | ||
| General | 925 | 61.67 | ||
| High | 314 | 20.93 | ||
| Very high | 77 | 5.13 | ||
| Whether nutrition facts table is helpful in healthy food choice | No | 66 | 4.40 | Sun et al., [ |
| Yes | 1434 | 95.60 | ||
| Whether friends and relatives use the nutrition facts table | No | 1194 | 79.60 | Rose et al., [ |
| Yes | 306 | 20.40 |
Note: a BMI stands for Body Mass Index which is a ratio of a person’s weight to their height; b One US dollar is equal to 6.941 Chinese Yuan and One Euro is equal to 8.199 Chinese Yuan from 29 July to 21 August 2020. c Each respondent’s nutrition knowledge level was evaluated by the six declarative knowledge questions from Dietary Guidelines for Chinese Residents [31] (see Supplementary Materials for details). The correct answer proportions of 0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and 76–100% indicate low level, medium level, high level, and very high level, respectively.
Chi-square test results of subgroups from the comparison of nutritional value.
| Yes = 1 [ | No = 0 [ | Chi-Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male ( | 237 (37.68) | 392 (62.32) | 0.876 | 0.349 |
| Female ( | 349 (40.07) | 522 (59.93) | ||
| ≤17 years old ( | 226 (75.33) | 74 (24.67) | 5.842 | 0.120 |
| 18–44 years old ( | 280 (27.94) | 722 (72.06) | ||
| 45–59 years old ( | 79 (41.80) | 110 (58.20) | ||
| ≥60 years old ( | 1 (11.11) | 8 (88.89) | ||
| Unmarried ( | 257 (37.09) | 436 (62.91) | 2.125 | 0.145 |
| Married ( | 329 (40.77) | 478 (59.23) | ||
| Primary school or below ( | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 15.081 | 0.005 |
| Junior school ( | 5 (13.89) | 31 (86.11) | ||
| Senior school ( | 31 (8.31) | 342 (91.69) | ||
| Junior college or undergraduate ( | 527 (53.12) | 465 (46.88) | ||
| Postgraduate or above ( | 23 (23.96) | 73 (76.04) | ||
| Underweight ( | 93 (33.82) | 182 (66.18) | 8.176 | 0.043 |
| Normal ( | 392 (41.75) | 547 (58.25) | ||
| Overweight ( | 77 (36.49) | 134 (63.51) | ||
| Obese ( | 24 (32.00) | 51 (68.00) | ||
| Annual household income after tax | ||||
| <10,000 Yuan ( | 29 (22.83) | 98 (77.17) | 6.389 | 0.270 |
| 10,000–49,999 Yuan ( | 92 (28.84) | 227 (71.16) | ||
| 50,000–99,999 Yuan ( | 109 (34.60) | 206 (65.40) | ||
| 100,000–149,999 Yuan ( | 117 (39.13) | 182 (60.87) | ||
| 150,000–199,999 Yuan ( | 147 (65.04) | 79 (34.96) | ||
| ≥200,000 Yuan ( | 92 (42.99) | 122 (57.01) | ||
| Live in rural areas ( | 170 (20.44) | 280 (79.56) | 0.449 | 0.503 |
| Live in urban areas ( | 416 (28.44) | 634 (71.56) | ||
| Health self-rating | ||||
| Very poor ( | 1 (20.00) | 4 (80.00) | 38.780 | 0.000 |
| Poor ( | 4 (17.39) | 19 (82.61) | ||
| Average ( | 93 (29.34) | 224 (70.66) | ||
| Good ( | 295 (38.21) | 477 (61.79) | ||
| Very good ( | 193 (50.39) | 190 (49.61) | ||
| Nutrition knowledge level | ||||
| Low ( | 31 (29.25) | 75 (70.75) | 64.342 | 0.000 |
| Medium ( | 324 (33.40) | 646 (66.60) | ||
| High ( | 211 (53.15) | 186 (46.85) | ||
| Very high ( | 20 (74.07) | 7 (25.93) | ||
| Whether to focus on an individual healthy diet | ||||
| No ( | 103 (83.06) | 21 (16.94) | 27.813 | 0.000 |
| Yes ( | 811 (58.94) | 565 (41.06) | ||
| Whether to have limited foods to prevent obesity | ||||
| No ( | 696 (65.11) | 373 (34.89) | 27.232 | 0.000 |
| Yes ( | 218 (50.58) | 213 (49.42) | ||
| Comprehension of nutrition facts table | ||||
| Very low ( | 34 (85.00) | 6 (15.00) | 238.093 | 0.000 |
| Low ( | 127 (88.19) | 17 (11.81) | ||
| Average ( | 636 (68.76) | 289 (31.24) | ||
| High ( | 89 (28.34) | 225 (71.66) | ||
| Very high ( | 28 (36.36) | 49 (63.64) | ||
| Whether nutrition facts table is helpful in healthy food choice | ||||
| No ( | 51 (77.27) | 15 (22.73) | 7.743 | 0.005 |
| Yes ( | 863 (60.18) | 571 (39.82) | ||
| Whether friends and relatives usenutrition facts table | ||||
| No ( | 804 (67.34) | 390 (32.66) | 100.816 | 0.000 |
| Yes ( | 110 (35.95) | 196 (64.05) |
Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Characteristics of the initial model and its outcomes.
| Model | Model Attributes | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Initial model | Independent variables | Education |
| BMI | ||
| Health self-rating | ||
| Nutrition knowledge level | ||
| Whether to focus on an individual healthy diet | ||
| Whether to have limited foods to prevent obesity | ||
| Comprehension of nutrition facts table | ||
| Whether nutrition facts table is helpful in healthy food choice | ||
| Whether friends and relatives use nutrition facts table | ||
| Maximum tree depth | 3 | |
| Minimum cases in the parent node | 119 | |
| Minimum cases in the child node | 8 | |
| Outcomes | Independent variables selected | Nutrition knowledge level |
| Number of nodes | 12 | |
| Number of terminal nodes | 7 | |
| Depth | 3 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations. Note: the maximum tree depth is the amount of growth layers of a decision tree; the terminal node is the node that can no longer be divided.
Chi-square test results of terminal nodes [n (%)].
| Terminal Nodes | Comparison of Nutritional Value | Chi-Square | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Total | |||
| Very low or low level of comprehension of nutrition facts table | 23 (1.53) | 161 (10.73) | 184 | 236.288 | 0.000 |
| Friends and relatives use the nutrition facts table | 53 (3.53) | 66 (4.40) | 119 | 11.236 | 0.001 |
| Focus on an individual healthy diet | 228 (15.20) | 516 (34.40) | 744 | 8.700 | 0.003 |
| Not focus on an individual healthy diet | 8 (0.53) | 54 (3.60) | 62 | 8.700 | 0.003 |
| Very high or high level of nutrition knowledge | 129 (8.60) | 30 (2.00) | 159 | 15.619 | 0.001 |
| Friends and relatives use the nutrition facts table | 76 (5.07) | 24 (1.60) | 100 | 13.667 | 0.000 |
| Friends and relatives do not use the nutrition facts table | 69 (4.60) | 63 (4.20) | 132 | 13.667 | 0.000 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Figure 1Results of Decision Tree Analysis based CHAID algorithm. Note: n (number); df (degree of freedom); χ2 (chi-square); Adj. p-value (adjusted p-value).