Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25195083›Full record

ArticleAppetite2014

Variety more than quantity of fruit and vegetable intake varies by socioeconomic status and financial hardship. Findings from older adults in the EPIC cohort.

Annalijn I Conklin, Nita G Forouhi, Marc Suhrcke, Paul Surtees, Nicholas J Wareham, Pablo Monsivais

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Annalijn I ConklinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, UK; Centre for Diet and Activity Research University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Nita G ForouhiMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, UK.
Marc SuhrckeCentre for Diet and Activity Research University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Paul SurteesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK.
Nicholas J WarehamMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, UK; Centre for Diet and Activity Research University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Pablo MonsivaisCentre for Diet and Activity Research University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: pm491@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

British Heart FoundationMedical Research Council MC_U106179471Medical Research Council MC_UP_A100_1003Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/5Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBeyond quantity, variety of fruit and vegetable (FV) intake prevents chronic conditions and is widely recommended as critical to healthful eating. FV consumption is socially patterned, especially for women, but little is known about multiple economic determinants of variety or whether they differ from those of quantity.

objectiveTo examine socioeconomic status and financial hardships in relation to variety and quantity of FV intakes among older British women and men.

methodsCross-sectional study of 9580 adults (50-79 years) in the nationally representative EPIC cohort who responded to a postal Health and Life Experiences Questionnaire (1996-2000) and Food Frequency Questionnaire (1998-2002). Variety counted unique items consumed (items/month) and quantity measured total intake (g/day).

resultsNo consistent differences by any economic factor were observed for quantity of fruits or vegetables, except education in men. Lower education, lower social class and renting were independently associated with lower fruit variety and vegetable variety (p-trend < 0.001), with differences stronger in men. Mean vegetable variety differed between top and bottom social classes by 2.9 items/month for men and 2.5 for women. Greater financial hardships were also independently associated with lower variety, with differences stronger in women for fruits and in men for vegetables.

conclusionsBritish older adults reporting greater economic disadvantage consistently consumed fewer different fruits or vegetables, but not lower amounts. Further nutrition studies of the protective effects, and underlying mechanisms, of FV variety are warranted for addressing social inequalities in older adults' diet quality. Dietary guidance should separately emphasise variety, and interventions should aim to address financial barriers to older adults' consumption of diverse FV.

Indexed as

AgingFruitLife Change EventsNutrition PolicyPatient ComplianceVegetablesAgedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDietDiet SurveysEducational StatusEnglandFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Status DisparitiesAgingFinancial hardshipHealthy eatingSocioeconomic inequalityUKVariety

Identifiers

PMID25195083
PMCPMC4217146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.