Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28931416›Full record

ArticleNutrition journal2017

Social disparities in food preparation behaviours: a DEDIPAC study.

Caroline Méjean, Wendy Si Hassen, Séverine Gojard, Pauline Ducrot, Aurélie Lampuré, Hans Brug, Nanna Lien, Mary Nicolaou, Michelle Holdsworth, Laura Terragni and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development, validation and item reduction of a food literacy questionnaire (IFLQ-19) with Australian adults.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    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

12 authors.

Caroline MéjeanUniversité Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologies et Biostatistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, F-93017, Bobigny, France. caroline.mejean@inra.fr.
Wendy Si HassenUniversité Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologies et Biostatistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, F-93017, Bobigny, France.
Séverine GojardINRA, UR1303 ALISS, 65 Boulevard de Brandebourg, F-94205, Ivry sur Seine Cedex, France.
Pauline DucrotUniversité Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologies et Biostatistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, F-93017, Bobigny, France.
Aurélie LampuréUniversité Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologies et Biostatistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, F-93017, Bobigny, France.
Hans BrugDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081, BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nanna LienDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1046 Blindern, -0316, Oslo, NO, Norway.
Mary NicolaouDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michelle HoldsworthSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Public Health section, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Laura TerragniDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Serge HercbergUniversité Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologies et Biostatistiques, Inserm (U1153), Inra (U1125), Cnam, F-93017, Bobigny, France.
Katia CastetbonUniversité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Ecole de Santé Publique, Route de Lennik 808, B-1070, CP 598, Bruxelles, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe specific role of major socio-economic indicators in influencing food preparation behaviours could reveal distinct socio-economic patterns, thus enabling mechanisms to be understood that contribute to social inequalities in health. This study investigated whether there was an independent association of each socio-economic indicator (education, occupation, income) with food preparation behaviours.

methodsA total of 62,373 adults participating in the web-based NutriNet-Santé cohort study were included in our cross-sectional analyses. Cooking skills, preparation from scratch and kitchen equipment were assessed using a 0-10-point score; frequency of meal preparation, enjoyment of cooking and willingness to cook better/more frequently were categorical variables. Independent associations between socio-economic factors (education, income and occupation) and food preparation behaviours were assessed using analysis of covariance and logistic regression models stratified by sex. The models simultaneously included the three socio-economic indicators, adjusting for age, household composition and whether or not they were the main cook in the household.

resultsParticipants with the lowest education, the lowest income group and female manual and office workers spent more time preparing food daily than participants with the highest education, those with the highest income and managerial staff (P < 0.0001). The lowest educated individuals were more likely to be non-cooks than those with the highest education level (Women: OR = 3.36 (1.69;6.69); Men: OR = 1.83 (1.07;3.16)) while female manual and office workers and the never-employed were less likely to be non-cooks (OR = 0.52 (0.28;0.97); OR = 0.30 (0.11;0.77)). Female manual and office workers had lower scores of preparation from scratch and were less likely to want to cook more frequently than managerial staff (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Women belonging to the lowest income group had a lower score of kitchen equipment (P < 0.0001) and were less likely to enjoy cooking meal daily (OR = 0.68 (0.45;0.86)) than those with the highest income.

conclusionLowest socio-economic groups, particularly women, spend more time preparing food than high socioeconomic groups. However, female manual and office workers used less raw or fresh ingredients to prepare meals than managerial staff. In the unfavourable context in France with reduced time spent preparing meals over last decades, our findings showed socioeconomic disparities in food preparation behaviours in women, whereas few differences were observed in men.

Indexed as

CookingHealth BehaviorMealsSocioeconomic FactorsAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedWhite PeopleYoung AdultCooking practicesCooking skillsFood preparationSocioeconomic

Identifiers

PMID28931416
PMCPMC5607511

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.