| Literature DB >> 35169381 |
Elsa Lamy1, Claudia Viegas2, Ada Rocha3, Maria Raquel Lucas4, Sofia Tavares5, Fernando Capela E Silva1, David Guedes6, Monica Laureati7, Zeineb Zian8, Alessandra Salles Machado9, Pierre Ellssel10, Bernhard Freyer10, Elena González-Rodrigo11, Jesús Calzadilla11, Edward Majewski12, Ibrahim Prazeres4, Vlademir Silva4, Josip Juračak13, Lenka Platilová Vorlíčková14, Antonino Kamutali15, Elizabeth Regina Tschá16, Keylor Villalobos17, Rasa Želvytė18, Ingrida Monkeviciene18, Jalila Elati19, Ana Maria de Souza Pinto20, Paula Midori Castelo20, Stephanie Anzman-Frasca21.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in severe, unprecedented changes affecting the world population. Restrictions in mobility, social distancing measures, and the persistent social alarm, during the first period of pandemic, resulted in dramatic lifestyle changes and affected physical and psychological wellbeing on a global scale. An international research team was constituted to develop a study involving different countries about eating motivations, dietary habits and behaviors related with food intake, acquisition, and preparation. This study presents results of an online survey, carried out during the first lockdown, in 2020, assessing food-related behavior and how people perceived them to change, comparatively to the period preceding the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 3332 responses, collected from 16 countries, were considered for analysis [72.8% in Europe, 12.8% in Africa, 2.2% in North America (USA) and 12.2% in South America]. Results suggest that the main motivations perceived to drive food intake were familiarity and liking. Two clusters were identified, based on food intake frequency, which were classified as "healthier" and "unhealthier". The former was constituted by individuals with higher scholarity level, to whom intake was more motivated by health, natural concerns, and weight control, and less by liking, pleasure or affect regulation. The second cluster was constituted by individuals with a higher proportion of male and intake more influenced by affect-related motivations. During this period, a generalized lower concern with the convenience attributes of foods was noted (namely, choice of processed products and fast-food meals), alongside an increase in time and efforts dedicated to home cooking. Understanding the main changes and their underlying motivations in a time of unprecedented crisis is of major importance, as it provides the scientific support that allows one to anticipate the implications for the future of the global food and nutrition system and, consequently, to take the appropriate action.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cross-country study; Eating motivations; Food behavior; Lockdown
Year: 2022 PMID: 35169381 PMCID: PMC8830148 DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104559
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Qual Prefer ISSN: 0950-3293 Impact factor: 5.565
Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics [number (%)]
| Parameters | Men (N = 946) | Women (N = 2386) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 39.1 ± 14.5a | 37.4 ± 13.5b | 0.002 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 25.5 ± 4.5a | 23.9 ± 4.8b | 0.0005 | |
| School level | Elementary school | 17 (2) | 43 (2) | 0.878 |
| High school | 136 (14) | 342 (14) | ||
| Graduate/post graduate | 791 (84) | 1998 (84) | ||
| Monthly income | Low | 115 (14) | 444 (21) | 0.0005* |
| Medium | 431 (51) | 1047 (49) | ||
| High | 296 (35) | 637 (30) | ||
| Children | None | 668 (71) | 1772 (74) | 0.034* |
| 1 or more | 277 (29) | 615 (26) | ||
| Confinement situation | Confined | 732 (78) | 2056 (86) | 0.0005* |
| Not confined | 210 (22) | 328 (14) | ||
| Labor | Employed (occupied) | 643 (68) | 1558 (66) | 0.275 |
| Not Employed (not occupied) | 71 (8) | 198 (8) | ||
| Student | 225 (24) | 623 (26) | ||
Different upper letters mean significant differences between gender (p-value < 0.05), according to Mann-Whitney test; * p-value based on Chi-square test
Final cluster centers of nutritional variables (means). The cluster-variables that contributed most to the classification are indicated in dark gray color.
Description of the clusters according to sociodemographic aspects and eating motivations (TEMS).
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | p-value* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 2165 | 1167 | – | ||
| Gender | Female | % | 0.017 | ||
| Age | Years | Mean (SD) | 38.1 (13.9) | 37.5 (13.6) | 0.187 |
| Body mass index | Kg/m2 | Mean (SD) | 24.3 (4.5) | 24.5 (5.3) | 0.196 |
| School level | Elementary school | % | <0.001 | ||
| High school | |||||
| Graduate/Post-grad degree | |||||
| Confinement | Confined | % | 84 | 84 | 0.814 |
| Not confined | 16 | 16 | |||
| Labor | Occupied | % | 66 | 65 | 0.257 |
| Not occupied | 8 | 10 | |||
| Student | 26 | 25 | |||
| Income | Low | % | 17.5 | 15 | 0.052 |
| Medium | 45 | 43 | |||
| High | 26.5 | 31 | |||
| Not declared | 11 | 11 | |||
| Children | None | % | 74 | 71 | 0.082 |
| With kids under 12y | 26 | 29 | |||
| Africa | 302 [71] | 123 [29] | |||
| Continent | Europe | n [%] | 1586 [65.4] | 839 [34.6] | <0.001 |
| South and Central America | 252 [62] | 154 [38] | |||
| North America | 25 [33] | 51 [67] | |||
| TEMS Liking | Mean (SD) | 0.005 | |||
| TEMS Health | <0.001 | ||||
| TEMS Pleasure | <0.001 | ||||
| TEMS Natural concerns | <0.001 | ||||
| TEMS Price | <0.001 | ||||
| TEMS Weight control | Eating motivations | <0.001 | |||
| TEMS Need and hunger | 4.9 (1.4) | 4.9 (1.4) | 0.254 | ||
| TEMS Convenience | 4.4 (1.6) | 4.5 (1.5) | 0.091 | ||
| TEMS Affect regulation | <0.001 | ||||
| TEMS Habits | 5.4 (1.4) | 5.4 (1.3) | 0.790 | ||
*Continuous variables were tested using one-way ANOVA or MANOVA test and categorical variables were tested using Chi-Squared test.
#North America was only composed by EUA, which has a limited number of participants, being not representative of this continent
Component loadings of changes in food intake patterns obtained by principal component analysis with Varimax rotation.
| Component | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| f1_a_Milk | 0.394 | |||||
| f2_a_RedMeat | 0.694 | |||||
| f3_a_WhiteMeat | 0.771 | |||||
| f4_a_Fish | 0.386 | 0.458 | ||||
| f5_a_Eggs | 0.528 | |||||
| f6_a_Vegetable | 0.682 | 0.310 | ||||
| f7_a_potato | 0.565 | |||||
| f8_a_cereals | 0.644 | |||||
| f9_a_Bread | 0.478 | 0.345 | ||||
| f10_a_BreakfastCereal | 0.532 | |||||
| f11_a_FreshFruit | 0.666 | |||||
| f12_a_ButterMarg | 0.510 | 0.350 | ||||
| f13_a_OliveOil | 0.469 | 0.344 | ||||
| f14_a_Pulses | 0.492 | 0.388 | ||||
| f15_a_Nuts | 0.598 | |||||
| f16_a_CakesCookies | 0.658 | |||||
| f17_a_Chocolate | 0.763 | |||||
| f18_a_sweetSnack | 0.743 | |||||
| f19_a_SaltySnack | 0.726 | |||||
| f20_a_Processed | 0.474 | |||||
| f21_a_Wine | 0.776 | |||||
| f22_a_Beer | 0.828 | |||||
| f23_a_Spirits | 0.828 | |||||
| f24_a_TeaCoffee | 0.483 | |||||
Coefficients equal or<0.30 are omitted.
Fig. 1Comparison of the regression coefficients from Components 1 (1A), Component 4 (1B) and Component 5 (1C) of changes in food intake patterns between Clusters 1 and 2 (MANOVA; p < 0.0001; Eta partial squared = 0.06; power > 99%).