| Literature DB >> 35329307 |
Abstract
In order to improve the health status of adolescents, studies are needed to illuminate the essence of their general and dietary lifestyle. Thus, we conducted this study to verify meaningful relationships between adolescent usage of social media (USM), which plays an important role in their life, their food consumption behavior (FCB), and their dietary satisfaction. This study used two analysis methods: t-tests and structural equation modeling (SEM). This study verified whether there was a significant difference in adolescent FCB depending on their USM using t-tests. This study proposes that the following FCBs showed significant differences between users and non-users of social media in adolescents: a tendency to try new types of food (t = 2.134, p < 0.05), a tendency to avoid foods with harmful risks such as suspected spoilage (t = 3.513, p < 0.001), a tendency to eat bread or fruit for a simple breakfast (t = -3.893, p < 0.001), and a tendency to often use home meal replacements (HMR), eat out or have food delivered (t = -3.245, p < 0.01). Furthermore, this study used SEM to verify the causal relationship between adolescent USM and their dietary satisfaction. According to the results of SEM, adolescents' USM mediated by the FCB of preferring convenience fully mediates the negative relationship between adolescent USM and their dietary satisfaction (p < 0.01). It is necessary to reverse the situation in which adolescent dietary satisfaction decreases as their FCB of preferring convenience increases. Government regulations for food companies and autonomous efforts for quality improvements on their part are needed.Entities:
Keywords: SEM; adolescent food; adolescent health; convenience food; cost-effective consumption; food consumer; food consumption pattern; mediation; sound eating
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329307 PMCID: PMC8950641 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Overall research outline. Note: Healthy refers to the FCB of considering a consumer’s health; Costeffective refers to the FCB of valuing cost-effective consumption; Soundhabit refers to the FCB of keeping sound eating habits; Convenience refers to the FCB of preferring convenience; “a” refers to a direct path from USM to Dietary Satisfaction, “b” and “c” are indirect paths from USM to Dietary Satisfaction.
Figure 2Research procedure of the study.
Operational definition of variables.
| Category | Variables | Definition | |
|---|---|---|---|
| explanatory | sns | usage of social media | |
| dependent variable (in analysis 1)/mediating | Healthy | cal_nut | tendency to eat food considering calories and nutrients |
| health_f | tendency to eat carefully selected food for one’s own health | ||
| safety_f | tendency to choose food by considering safety rather than price or taste | ||
| Costeffective | price_c | tendency to compare prices from several companies for the same product | |
| quality_c | tendency to check the quality level of food compared to the price before purchasing | ||
| buy_cert | tendency to purchase HACCP- or GAP-certified products | ||
| Soundhabit | change_d | tendency to change diet often for a variety of flavors | |
| taste_f | tendency to choose food based on taste | ||
| n_food | tendency to try new types of food | ||
| reg_ml | tendency to eat breakfast and every meal regularly | ||
| reject_h | tendency not to eat foods with harmful risks such as suspected spoilage | ||
| Convenience | simple_b | tendency to eat bread or fruit for a simple breakfast | |
| hmr_d | tendency to often use HMR or eating out/delivered food | ||
| small_p | tendency to purchase small packaged foods or pre-processed agricultural products | ||
| dependent | satisfy_dl | satisfaction with dietary lifestyle | |
Factor analysis of FCB.
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cal_nut | 0.718 | 0.014 | −0.113 | 0.107 |
| health_f | 0.745 | −0.066 | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| safety_f | 0.547 | 0.175 | 0.133 | −0.095 |
| price_c | 0.256 | 0.499 | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| quality_c | 0.344 | 0.500 | −0.052 | −0.001 |
| taste_f | −0.079 | −0.059 | 0.627 | 0.181 |
| n_food | 0.013 | 0.081 | 0.551 | −0.016 |
| reject_h | 0.091 | −0.060 | 0.425 | −0.139 |
| simple_b | 0.097 | −0.021 | 0.003 | 0.581 |
| hmr_d | −0.020 | 0.064 | 0.139 | 0.571 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.627 | 0.828 | 0.601 | 0.216 |
| Proportion variance | 2.305 | 1.632 | 1.161 | 1.068 |
| Cumulative variance | 2.305 | 3.937 | 5.098 | 6.166 |
| KMO = 0.765, Bartlett’s χ2 = 1546.45 ( | ||||
Reliability analysis.
| Classification | Variables | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy | cal_nut | 0.762 |
| Costeffective | price_c | 0.741 |
| Soundhabit | taste_f | 0.575 |
| Convenience | simple_b | 0.632 |
Results of descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Mean | S.D | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cal_nut | 3.260 | 0.873 | −0.196 | 2.551 |
| health_f | 3.175 | 0.843 | −0.162 | 2.986 |
| safety_f | 3.245 | 0.846 | −0.283 | 2.873 |
| price_c | 3.229 | 0.838 | −0.239 | 2.947 |
| quality_c | 3.136 | 0.829 | −0.055 | 2.839 |
| taste_f | 3.779 | 0.772 | −0.165 | 2.704 |
| n_food | 3.680 | 0.783 | −0.256 | 2.918 |
| reject_h | 3.811 | 0.821 | −0.321 | 2.778 |
| simple_b | 3.175 | 0.969 | −0.493 | 2.507 |
| hmr_d | 3.286 | 0.943 | −0.159 | 2.666 |
Difference in FCBs between non-users and users of social media.
| Variables | Non-User | User | t | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| cal_nut | 3.40 | 1.03 | 3.25 | 0.86 | 1.109 |
| health_f | 3.26 | 0.79 | 3.16 | 0.84 | 0.689 |
| safety_f | 3.38 | 0.69 | 3.23 | 0.85 | 1.069 |
| price_c | 3.11 | 0.91 | 3.23 | 0.82 | −0.887 |
| quality_c | 3.09 | 0.82 | 3.13 | 0.83 | −0.334 |
| taste_f | 3.73 | 0.66 | 3.78 | 0.78 | −0.361 |
| n_food | 3.92 | 0.77 | 3.66 | 0.78 | 2.134 * |
| reject_h | 4.23 | 0.75 | 3.78 | 0.81 | 3.513 *** |
| simple_b | 2.61 | 0.88 | 3.21 | 0.96 | −3.893 *** |
| hmr_d | 2.83 | 1.12 | 3.31 | 0.92 | −3.245 ** |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Analytic result of effect.
| Path | Coefficient | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||
| USM → Dietary satisfaction | −0.054 | −0.135 | 0.026 |
| USM → Healthy → Dietary satisfaction | −0.006 | −0.031 | 0.008 |
| USM → Costeffective → Dietary satisfaction | 0.002 | −0.015 | 0.024 |
| USM → Soundhabit → Dietary satisfaction | 0.001 | −0.002 | 0.020 |
| USM → Convenience → Dietary satisfaction | −0.027 ** | −0.069 | −0.003 |
** p < 0.01, CI: Confidence Interval.