ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2018
Time to address the double inequality of differences in dietary intake between Scotland and England.
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cystic Fibrosis-Related Gut Dysbiosis: A Systematic Review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Red and Red Processed Meat Consumption Behaviors in Scottish Adults.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Healthy and sustainable diets that meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and are affordable for different income groups in the UK.Public health nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Geographical disparities in health outcomes have been evident across the UK for decades. Recent analysis on the dietary differences between Scotland and England that might go some way to explain these health differences is limited. This study aimed to assess whether, and to what degree, aspects of diet and nutrition differ between Scottish and English populations, specifically between those with similar household incomes. A period of 12 years of UK food purchase data (2001-2012) were pooled and used to estimate household-level consumption data for Scotland and England. Population mean food consumption and nutrient intakes were estimated, adjusting for known confounders (year, age of household reference person, age they left full-time education and income). Comparison was also made within equivalised income quintiles. Analysis showed that the foods and nutrients that should be increased in the diet (highlighted in the Scottish Dietary Goals) were lower in Scotland than in England (e.g. fruit and vegetables 267 g/d; 99 % CI 259, 274 v. 298 g/d; 99 % CI 296, 301), P<0·001). Similarly, foods and drinks linked with poor health outcomes were higher in Scotland. These regional inequalities in diet were even more pronounced in the lower-income groups (e.g. red and processed meat consumption in the lowest-income quintile was 65 g/d; 99 % CI 61, 69 in Scotland v. 58 g/day; 99 % CI 57, 60 in England, P<0·001, but similar in the highest-income quintile (58 g/d; 99 % CI 54, 61 v. 59 g/d; 99 % CI 58, 60, respectively). A poorer diet in Scotland compared with England, particularly among disadvantaged groups, may contribute to differences in excess mortality between countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.