Next Article in Journal
Influence of Socioeconomic Factors, Gender and Indigenous Status on Smoking in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Is Pedometer-Determined Physical Activity Decreasing in Czech Adults? Findings from 2008 to 2013
Article Menu

Export Article

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(10), 1034; doi:10.3390/ijerph13101034

Article
Family Affluence and the Eating Habits of 11- to 15-Year-Old Czech Adolescents: HBSC 2002 and 2014
Faculty of Physical Culture, Institute of Active Lifestyle, Palacký University Olomouc, Tr. Miru 117, Olomouc 77111, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Received: 3 September 2016 / Accepted: 18 October 2016 / Published: 24 October 2016

Abstract

:
Socioeconomic inequalities in eating habits have a profound impact on the health of adolescents. The aim of the present study was to evaluate socioeconomic disparities in the eating habits of Czech adolescents and to compare their change between 2002 and 2014. The data from the Czech Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study conducted in 2002 and 2014 was utilized. The Family Affluence Scale (FAS) was used to assess socioeconomic disparities. Higher odds of daily consumption of fruit (2002: OR = 1.67; 2014: OR = 1.70, p < 0.001) and vegetables (2002: OR = 1.54; 2014: OR = 1.48, p < 0.001) were associated with high FAS in both genders. Adolescents with higher FAS were less likely to consume sweets (2002: OR = 0.72, p < 0.05) and more likely to eat breakfast on weekdays (2014: OR = 1.19, p < 0.05). In 2002 and 2014, the data showed lower odds of daily consumption of soft drinks (Low: OR = 0.47; Medium: OR = 0.43; High: OR = 0.41, p < 0.001), fruit (Low: OR = 0.73; Medium: OR = 0.74, p < 0.001; High: OR = 0.75, p < 0.05), sweets (Low: OR = 0.71; Medium: OR = 0.79, p < 0.001) and breakfast on weekends (High: OR = 0.70, p < 0.05), and a higher likelihood of eating breakfast on weekdays (Low: OR = 1.26, p < 0.01; Medium: OR = 1.13, p < 0.05). These findings play an important role in future public measures to improve dietary habits and decrease social inequalities in youth.
Keywords:
eating habits; children; adolescents; HBSC; FAS; socioeconomic status; Czech Republic

1. Introduction

Socioeconomic inequalities in eating behaviors are linked to overweight and obesity and have a profound impact on health and well-being [1,2,3,4,5]. Most recent studies representing data from countries with various levels of income have shown that children and adolescents from families with low socioeconomic status (SES) tend to have poorer diets [1,6,7,8], high levels of sedentary activity [8,9], higher likelihood of smoking cigarettes [8], higher odds of obesity [9,10,11,12] and an increased risk of morbidity and mortality [13]. Unhealthy diets consisting of sugar-rich and fatty foods among children are also common in families with low parental education levels [1,14]. Healthy foods are frequently more expensive and are not often affordable for families with lower incomes [15,16], which may widen disparities in access to healthy diets [15].
Differences in eating patterns with regard to SES and gender can be seen from young ages [14]. Several studies demonstrated that SES plays one of the key roles in the development of healthy eating habits in children [1,17], which tend to be carried into adulthood [18,19,20]. Significant associations have been documented between parental SES and the consumption of breakfast [7,9,21,22], a morning snack [9], dinner [21], fruit and vegetables [7,21,23,24,25] and dairy products (low and full-fat milk/yoghurt, chocolate milk, low and full-fat cheese and feta cheese) [7,25] in children and adolescents. Sweet beverages, processed and energy-dense foods have been inversely associated with family SES [1,6]. These findings suggest a higher risk of developing overweight and obesity during childhood in low-income families [9,26], and therefore there is a need to address the socioeconomic disparities by developing policies and programs that will improve the eating habits of children from these social groups.
Over the last two decades, international studies have adopted the Family Affluence Scale (FAS) as a measurement of parental SES [27]. The FAS, comprising easily answered questions that reflect material affluence, has proven to be a useful indicator of child material affluence [27]. Several studies, using the data from the Lithuanian, Scottish and Norwegian Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) questionnaire and the FAS, monitored the relationship between family material wealth and dietary frequencies (consumption of fruit, vegetables, sweets and/or sugar-sweetened beverages) and examined time trends in socioeconomic differences in these eating behaviors [28,29,30]. The current findings show that in spite of some improvements in dietary trends across all SES levels, the persistent socioeconomic inequalities in eating habits still exist and need to be addressed in future programs and policies [28,29].
In the Czech Republic, dietary trends in children and adolescents have been monitored and documented over the last 12 years [31] in addition to trends in overweight/obesity, physical activity and screen time [32]. However, while socioeconomic disparities in dietary behaviors are well documented across Europe, little is known about the association between eating habits and FAS/SES and its changes over time in Czech children and adolescents. This information is important for identifying social groups who may be at higher risk and for developing more effective public health interventions and policies aiming to improve children’s diets. Therefore, the aims of this study were (i) to determine the association between the dietary habits of Czech adolescents and family socio-economic position and (ii) to examine the change in socioeconomic disparities in six eating behaviors between 2002 and 2014.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study used data from the Czech HBSC study conducted in 2002 and 2014. The HBSC is a cross-national survey undertaken in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) every four years in member countries [33]. This study followed the standardized protocol developed by the HBSC International Network committee (No. 17/2013), which includes detailed information on methodology, conceptual framework, survey design and administration, and translation guidelines [33]. The External Protocol for the HBSC 2014 survey is available to the public on the HBSC website [34].
For each year of data collection, the HBSC questionnaire contains mandatory (demographic factors, social context, health outcomes, health and risk behaviors), optional and country-specific questions that assess adolescents’ health, well-being and health behaviors in the social context. In this study, only data pertaining to eating behaviors and family affluence were used. Participants were 11-, 13- and 15-year-old children and adolescents who were selected by stratified cluster sampling. The data were collected through self-completed questionnaires administered in the classroom. After adjustment for missing data, the file was exported to the HBSC International Data Bank at the University of Bergen to be compiled within an international data file. The outcome variables were dichotomized. In both years the response rates were between 75% and 85%.

2.2. Family Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Assessing SES by using income, education or occupation in young people results in high levels of missing data [27]; therefore, this study used the FAS as a simple indicator of affluence in the children’s home [35]. The FAS consisted of several easily answered questions designed to quantify material assets in the family [27,35]. Because of the fast changes in economic circumstances and common material assets in the families, the FAS questions have to be adapted to remain discriminatory within very high or poor affluent countries [35,36]. High validity (kappa coefficients 0.41%–0.74%; 76.2%–88.1% agreement) and moderate reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.58) between children and parental responses on the FAS items have been documented [37,38,39,40].

2.3. Family Affluence Scale (FAS)

In 2002, the FAS was composed of four items: (1) Car: does your family own a car, van or truck? (Codes: No = 0; One = 1; Two or more = 3); (2) Own bedroom: do you have your own bedroom for yourself? (Codes: No = 0; Yes = 1); (3) Holidays: during the past 12 months, how many times did you travel away on holiday with your family? (Codes: Never = 0; Once = 1; Twice = 2; Three or more times = 3); and (4) Computers: how many computers does your family own? (Codes: None = 0; One = 1; Two = 2; Three or more = 3) [27]. Family affluence was calculated by the summation of answers into a scale from 0 to 9, and participants were divided into tertiles (affluence: low = 0–3, medium = 4–6, high = 7–9) [38]. In 2014, the updated version of the FAS was used to compensate for the changing social environment [35,36]. Two new questions were added to the existing items on having a bedroom, car, family holidays and computer ownership: (1) Does your family have a dishwasher? (Codes: No = 0; Yes = 2); and (2) How many bathrooms (room with a bath/shower or both) are in your home? (None = 0; One = 1; Two = 2; Three or more = 3). Answers were ranked on a scale from 0 to 13 and then categorized as low (0–6), medium (7–9) and high (10–13) family affluence [35].

2.4. Eating Habits

The frequency of six eating habits was assessed by questions: “How many times a week do you consume fruit/vegetables/sweetened soft drinks/sweets?” (Response options: never/less than once a week/two to four times a week/five to six times a week/once a day/more than once a day) and “How often do you usually have breakfast (more than a glass of milk or fruit juice)?” (Response options: weekdays: never/one day/two days/three days/four days/five days; weekends: never/only on one day/on both days). Daily consumption referred to eating fruit/vegetables/soft drinks/sweets once or more per day and eating breakfast every day during weekdays and on both days on the weekends.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Frequencies of the consumption of eating habits were calculated for each gender and survey year (2002 and 2014) (Table 1). A possible interaction of the daily consumption of eating habits with family affluence for each gender was assessed using logistic regression (Enter method). Logistic regression was also used to calculate changes in eating habits for each gender and family affluence group between 2002 and 2014. The likelihood of daily consumption was described by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The reference group for family affluence was low and for time changes the reference year was 2002. Statistical analyses were performed on IBM SPSS v21.0 software (IBM SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The total number of participants who completed the HBSC questionnaire was 5012 (2412 boys; 2600 girls) in 2002 and 5819 (2843 boys; 2976 girls) in 2014. Table 1 describes the frequency of consumption of fruit, vegetables, sweetened soft drinks, sweets and breakfast (weekdays and weekends) according to the FAS category in 2002 and 2014, as well as the changes in socioeconomic inequalities in the eating habits of Czech adolescents over time.

3.1. Overall Socioeconomic Inequalities

When comparing low FAS levels to medium and high FAS levels, children from more affluent families were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to consume daily fruit and vegetables in both 2002 and 2014 (Table 1). Substantial social inequalities were also found in the regular consumption of sweets in 2002 (low vs. high FAS, p < 0.05) and breakfast during weekdays in 2002 (low vs. medium FAS, p < 0.01) and 2014 (low vs. high FAS, p < 0.05). No differences between the FAS groups were found for soft drink and breakfast (weekends) intake in both years, as well as daily sweets in 2014.

3.2. Inequalities in Family Affluence by Gender

In 2002, significantly higher odds of daily consumption of fruit and vegetables were associated with medium (OR = 1.29/1.36 in boys/girls; OR = 1.28/1.33 in boys/girls, respectively) and high (OR = 1.64/2.05 in boys/girls; OR = 1.94 in girls only, respectively) FAS in both genders. Similar findings were indicated in 2014, when adolescents from medium (OR = 1.37 in girls only; OR = 1.32/1.30 in boys/girls, respectively) and high (OR = 1.55/1.91 in boys/girls; OR = 1.44/1.59 in boys/girls, respectively) affluence families had a greater likelihood of eating fruits and vegetables compared to adolescents from lower affluence families. In both genders, FAS was not significantly linked to the daily consumption of sweetened soft drinks (2002 and 2014), sweets (2014) and breakfast on weekdays (2014). In addition, no associations between the FAS were found with the daily consumption of sweets and breakfast during weekdays in boys (2002) and regular breakfast on the weekend in girls (2002) and boys (2014). Greater disparities in family material wealth between the FAS groups were seen in the daily consumption of sweets (girls), breakfast during weekdays (girls) and on weekends (boys) in 2002 compared to 2014 (Table 1).

3.3. Changes in Eating Habits by Family Affluence between 2002 and 2014

From 2002 to 2014, the data showed a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in the percentages of daily consumption of sweetened soft drinks (both genders) and fruit (girls only) across all FAS groups (Table 1). Additionally, a significant improvement was indicated in the low and medium FAS groups regarding the regular consumption of sweets (both genders) and breakfast during weekdays (girls only). Daily vegetable intake (both genders) and breakfast during weekdays (boys only) and on weekends (both genders, except girls from low FAS and boys from high FAS) remained statistically unchanged in all FAS groups over time.

4. Discussion

This study examined the association between eating habits and FAS levels in Czech adolescents as well as monitoring the changes in socioeconomic disparities in eating habits from 2002 to 2014. Substantial inequalities in the daily consumption of fruit and vegetables were found to be associated with low FAS in the 2002 and 2014 surveys. Moreover, greater disparities among the FAS groups were seen in the intake of sweets (girls), breakfast during weekdays (girls) and on the weekends (boys) in 2002. No differences between FAS groups were found in the daily intake of sweetened soft drinks, sweets and breakfast during weekdays in both genders in 2014. Over the 12-year period, significant improvements were seen in the daily consumption of sweetened soft drinks (all FAS groups, both genders), sweets (low and medium FAS, both genders), and breakfast during the weekdays (low and medium FAS groups, girls) and on the weekends (low FAS, girls, and high FAS, boys). Our findings also showed a reduction in fruit intake in children from families with low and medium FAS, and there was no change in vegetable consumption.
The FAS is a valid instrument for measuring material wealth [37,38] and is often used to provide information on parental SES [27]. Several cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have documented the associations between diet and SES (measured by parental income and/or education) in adolescents [8,14,17,41,42,43]. The results from a systematic review addressing this relationship indicated that 88% of high quality studies reported that low SES adolescents have a poorer diet (greater fat and refined sugar intake, lower amounts of protein, monounsaturated fat and most vitamins and minerals) compared with their peers from high SES families [8,44]. Similar to our findings, a negative association between fruit and vegetable consumption in youth and family SES has been reported in previous studies across Europe [1,7,8,17,23,28]. Although social inequalities in the diets of children and adolescents still persist, a study of Nordic adolescents showed no differences in fruit and vegetable intake between FAS groups or gender as a result of public measures implemented over the past decade [41,43]. According to the current literature, lower family affluence is also associated with lower daily breakfast intake in most countries [7,28,45] and a higher intake of soft drinks with sugar [17,41,46], which is in contrast with our findings. In the Czech Republic there are currently no programs targeted at improving socioeconomic disparities in adolescents. No change in consumption of soft drinks and breakfast across FAS levels might be explained by various strategies that promote healthy eating [47,48,49,50,51].
Eating habits in adolescents are attributable to multiple factors such as food availability at home, food preferences, cost, convenience, school support, personal and cultural beliefs and parental modeling and permissiveness [52,53,54]. Socioeconomic disparities in the availability of healthy foods may be influenced by parents’ knowledge of nutrition [41] and food cost [16,55]. The literature has shown that parents with higher education and income levels have better knowledge of dietary guidelines and therefore have a greater positive impact on their children’s diets compared to parents of lower SES [17,41]. The cost and affordability of a healthy diet may be another barrier to healthy eating for people with low incomes [16,55]. A study by Barosh [55] demonstrated that low-income households had to spend up to 48% of their weekly income to buy healthy and sustainable food compared to 9% of the weekly income of high-income families [55]. In addition, unhealthy diets in people with low SES might be influenced by taste preferences for less healthy food items [56] that were mediated by the repeated introduction of unhealthy foods at an early age, which affected children’s taste acquisition and eating habits later in life [57]. Young children tend to refuse unfamiliar foods eight to 15 times before accepting them and, therefore, future eating habits can be influence by repeated provision of a wide variety of food items in early childhood [57]. Children’s intake and preferences are also influenced by eating habits of their parents [58]. According to a study of eating behavior, high-income families are more likely to repeatedly introduce healthy foods, regardless of high cost, that their children initially refuse compared to the families with low incomes [57]. This might explain the disparities in vegetable and fruit consumption between FAS levels.
Research on the socioeconomic inequalities in the eating habits of Czech children and adolescents is limited. To our knowledge, the HBSC study is the only study that monitored the relationship between family affluence and eating habits in young people [35,45,59,60]. In the Czech Republic, few previous studies have examined social disparities among adults [61,62,63] and children/adolescents [45,64,65], but only one study researched eating habits (daily breakfast consumption, the HBSC study) [45]. The limited number of studies addressing inequalities in eating habits may result in the lack of public measures that focus on decreasing social disparities among Czech young people.
Even though there are some programs addressing healthy eating in children and adolescents in the Czech Republic, most of these programs are still in the testing/trial phase and many do not apply to the entire youth population [47,48,49,50,51]. For example, the low effectiveness of the “free fruit (renamed to fruit and vegetables) at school program” (which had a low budget allocation, and provided one piece of fruit or vegetable only twice a month) could explain the persistent socioeconomic inequalities in fruit and vegetable consumption in Czech youth, as well as a significant decrease in fruit intake across all FAS groups in girls and in boys in medium FAS groups, and no change in daily vegetable consumption from 2002 to 2014. Therefore, our findings suggest a need for developing and implementing initiatives and programs that will focus on the promotion of vegetable (both genders) and fruit (especially in boys) consumption, targeting children from less affluent families.

Strengths and Limitations

The main strengths of this study are the large sample size, which is representative of the Czech adolescent population aged 11–15, the standardized procedures of the international cross-sectional HBSC study, the high response rates and the use of the FAS as an effective measure of material wealth with minimum missing data.
However, several limitations should be taken into consideration. Reported eating habits may have been affected by social desirability and approval bias, leading to an overestimation of the frequency of the consumption of healthy foods and an underestimation of the consumption of unhealthy foods [66,67,68]. Evidence suggests that people with higher education tend to over-report the consumption of healthy food items more frequently [69] which could decrease the gap between low and high FAS groups in terms of daily consumption of fruit and vegetables. Biased reporting is another disadvantage that may include misinterpreting or misunderstanding of the questions, lack of motivation and not paying attention while filling out the questionnaire. A study on European adolescents found that weight status and psychosocial weight-related factors are the major correlates of misreporting of dietary energy [70]. Also, the questions used to measure eating habits were limited to information on the consumption of five food items (fruit, vegetables, soft drinks, sweets and breakfast) and did not measure the quantities of food eaten and whether children met the dietary recommendation. Additionally, this study had a cross-sectional design, and causality cannot be established from our results. Therefore, longitudinal studies are needed in order to gain more information on the direction of the relationship between SES (or FAS) and eating habits.
Moreover, the assessment of family SES by the FAS should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The FAS is a tool that measures more material wealth than SES among young people because it does not include information on parental education, income and/or occupation. Validation studies found that the FAS is a valid instrument for measuring family affluence [38,71]. In addition, caution is encouraged when comparing the FAS between different times, as some FAS items may be measured differently in different survey years [71]. For example, owning a computer in 2002 was related to a game culture, whereas in 2014 computers were used for educational purposes [71]. Additionally, in our study, the FAS was calculated in a different way (questionnaire items) in 2002 and 2014. It was adapted to changes in economic circumstances so the questions remained discriminatory between low and high affluent populations.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to provide information on the socioeconomic inequalities in six eating habits of Czech children and adolescents and to monitor their change over time. Substantial social disparities were found in the consumption of fruit and vegetables in both genders and both survey years. Significant differences were also observed between low and high FAS in the intake of sweets (2002) and breakfast during the weekdays (2014). These findings suggest that the socioeconomic inequalities have not changed much from 2002 to 2014. In 2002 and 2014, the odds of the daily consumption of soft drinks (all FAS groups), fruits (all FAS groups), sweets (low and medium FAS) and breakfast on the weekends (high FAS) decreased, while the odds of eating breakfast during weekdays (low and medium FAS) increased. These results contribute to a better understanding of the current situation in the Czech Republic and suggest that future public measures to improve healthy eating among Czech young people should focus on decreasing gender and social inequalities in eating habits (especially with respect to fruit and vegetable consumption) by creating intervention programs that target less affluent families.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a research grant from the Czech Science Foundation “Trends in overweight and obesity, physical activity and sedentary behaviour among Czech schoolchildren: HBSC study between 2002 and 2014” (grant number 14-02804S); and by the student project of the Palacký University (IGA_FTK_UP_2015_003).

Author Contributions

Jaroslava Voráčová and Erik Sigmund designed the study. Jaroslava Voráčová and Erik Sigmund drafted the manuscript for intellectual content with input from Dagmar Sigmundová and Michal Kalman. Dagmar Sigmundová, Erik Sigmund and Jaroslava Voráčová analyzed and interpreted the data. Michal Kalman arranged and supervised the data collection. All authors approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fernandez-Alvira, J.M.; Bammann, K.; Pala, V.; Krogh, V.; Barba, G.; Eiben, G.; Hebestreit, A.; Veidebaum, T.; Reisch, L.; Tornaritis, M.; et al. Country-specific dietary patterns and associations with socioeconomic status in European children: The IDEFICS study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 68, 811–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Moor, I.; Rathmann, K.; Stronks, K.; Levin, K.; Spallek, J.; Richter, M. Psychosocial and behavioural factors in the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent health: A multilevel analysis in 28 European and north American countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 912–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pala, V.; Lissner, L.; Hebestreit, A.; Lanfer, A.; Sieri, S.; Siani, A.; Huybrechts, I.; Kambek, L.; Molnar, D.; Tornaritis, M.; et al. Dietary patterns and longitudinal change in body mass in european children: A follow-up study on the idefics multicenter cohort. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 67, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. De Winter, A.F.; Visser, L.; Verhulst, F.C.; Vollebergh, W.A.; Reijneveld, S.A. Longitudinal patterns and predictors of multiple health risk behaviors among adolescents: The trails study. Prev. Med. 2016, 84, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Watts, A.W.; Mason, S.M.; Loth, K.; Larson, N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Socioeconomic differences in overweight and weight-related behaviors across adolescence and young adulthood: 10-year longitudinal findings from project eat. Prev. Med. 2016, 87, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kant, A.K.; Graubard, B.I. Family income and education were related with 30-year time trends in dietary and meal behaviors of American children and adolescents. J. Nutr. 2013, 143, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Yannakoulia, M.; Lykou, A.; Kastorini, C.M.; Saranti Papasaranti, E.; Petralias, A.; Veloudaki, A.; Linos, A.; Team, D.P.R. Socio-economic and lifestyle parameters associated with diet quality of children and adolescents using classification and regression tree analysis: The diatrofi study. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hanson, M.D.; Chen, E. Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: A review of the literature. J. Behav. Med. 2007, 30, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Thibault, H.; Carriere, C.; Langevin, C.; Kossi Deti, E.; Barberger-Gateau, P.; Maurice, S. Prevalence and factors associated with overweight and obesity in French primary-school children. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hatami, M.; Taib, M.N.; Jamaluddin, R.; Saad, H.A.; Djazayery, A.; Chamari, M.; Nazari, M. Dietary factors as the major determinants of overweight and obesity among Iranian adolescents. A cross-sectional study. Appetite 2014, 82, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Knai, C.; Lobstein, T.; Darmon, N.; Rutter, H.; McKee, M. Socioeconomic patterning of childhood overweight status in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 1472–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Singh, G.K.; Siahpush, M.; Kogan, M.D. Rising social inequalities in U.S. childhood obesity, 2003–2007. Ann. Epidemiol. 2010, 20, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mackenbach, J.P.; Stirbu, I.; Roskam, A.J.; Schaap, M.M.; Menvielle, G.; Leinsalu, M.; Kunst, A.E. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 2468–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Elinder, L.S.; Heinemans, N.; Zeebari, Z.; Patterson, E. Longitudinal changes in health behaviours and body weight among Swedish school children—Associations with age, gender and parental education—The SCIP school cohort. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Drewnowski, A.; Darmon, N. Food choices and diet costs: An economic analysis. J. Nutr. 2005, 135, 900–904. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Morris, M.A.; Hulme, C.; Clarke, G.P.; Edwards, K.L. What is the cost of a healthy diet? Using diet data from the UK women’s cohort study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 1043–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Petrauskiene, A.; Zaltauske, V.; Albaviciute, E. Family socioeconomic status and nutrition habits of 7–8 year old children: Cross-sectional Lithuanian COSI study. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2015, 41, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Emmett, P.M.; Jones, L.R. Diet, growth, and obesity development throughout childhood in the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. Nutr. Rev. 2015, 73, 175–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mikkila, V.; Rasanen, L.; Raitakari, O.T.; Pietinen, P.; Viikari, J. Longitudinal changes in diet from childhood into adulthood with respect to risk of cardiovascular diseases: The cardiovascular risk in young Finns study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 58, 1038–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Northstone, K.; Smith, A.D.; Newby, P.K.; Emmett, P.M. Longitudinal comparisons of dietary patterns derived by cluster analysis in 7- to 13-year-old children. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 109, 2050–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Fismen, A.S.; Samdal, O.; Torsheim, T. Family affluence and cultural capital as indicators of social inequalities in adolescent’s eating behaviours: A population-based survey. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lazzeri, G.; Ahluwalia, N.; Niclasen, B.; Pammolli, A.; Vereecken, C.; Rasmussen, M.; Pedersen, T.P.; Kelly, C. Trends from 2002 to 2010 in daily breakfast consumption and its socio-demographic correlates in adolescents across 31 countries participating in the HBSC study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Attorp, A.; Scott, J.E.; Yew, A.C.; Rhodes, R.E.; Barr, S.I.; Naylor, P.J. Associations between socioeconomic, parental and home environment factors and fruit and vegetable consumption of children in grades five and six in British Columbia, Canada. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Borraccino, A.; Lemma, P.; Berchialla, P.; Cappello, N.; Inchley, J.; Dalmasso, P.; Charrier, L.; Cavallo, F.; Italian, H.G. Unhealthy food consumption in adolescence: Role of sedentary behaviours and modifiers in 11-, 13- and 15-year-old Italians. Eur. J. Public Health 2016, 26, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kelishadi, R.; Qorbani, M.; Motlagh, M.E.; Ardalan, G.; Heshmat, R.; Hovsepian, S. Socioeconomic disparities in dietary and physical activity habits of Iranian children and adolescents: The Caspian-IV study. Arch. Iran Med. 2016, 19, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Bammann, K.; Gwozdz, W.; Lanfer, A.; Barba, G.; De Henauw, S.; Eiben, G.; Fernandez-Alvira, J.M.; Kovacs, E.; Lissner, L.; Moreno, L.A.; et al. Socioeconomic factors and childhood overweight in Europe: Results from the multi-centre idefics study. Pediatr. Obes. 2013, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Currie, C.; Molcho, M.; Boyce, W.; Holstein, B.; Torsheim, T.; Richter, M. Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 66, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fismen, A.S.; Smith, O.R.; Torsheim, T.; Samdal, O. A school based study of time trends in food habits and their relation to socio-economic status among Norwegian adolescents, 2001–2009. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Levin, K.A.; Kirby, J.; Currie, C.; Inchley, J. Trends in adolescent eating behaviour: A multilevel cross-sectional study of 11–15 year olds in Scotland, 2002–2010. J. Public Health 2012, 34, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zaborskis, A.; Lagunaite, R.; Busha, R.; Lubiene, J. Trend in eating habits among Lithuanian school-aged children in context of social inequality: Three cross-sectional surveys 2002, 2006 and 2010. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Voracova, J.; Sigmund, E.; Sigmundova, D.; Kalman, M. Changes in eating behaviours among Czech children and adolescents from 2002 to 2014 (HBSC study). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 15888–15899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sigmund, E.; Sigmundova, D.; Badura, P.; Kalman, M.; Hamrik, Z.; Pavelka, J. Temporal trends in overweight and obesity, physical activity and screen time among Czech adolescents from 2002 to 2014: A national health behaviour in school-aged children study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 11848–11868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Roberts, C.; Freeman, J.; Samdal, O.; Schnohr, C.W.; de Looze, M.E.; Nic Gabhainn, S.; Iannotti, R.; Rasmussen, M. The health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: Methodological developments and current tensions. Int. J. Public Health 2009, 54, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC). Available online: http://www.hbsc.org (accessed on 9 February 2016).
  35. Currie, C.; Inchley, J.; Molcho, M.; Lenzi, M.; Veselska, Z.; Wild, F. Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study Protocol: Background, Methodology and Mandatory Items for the 2013/2014 Survey; CAHRU: St. Andrews, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hartley, J.E.K.; Levin, K.; Currie, C. A new version of the HBSC family affluence scale—Fas III: Scottish qualitative findings from the international FAS development study. Child Indic. Res. 2015, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Andersen, A.; Krolner, R.; Currie, C.; Dallago, L.; Due, P.; Richter, M.; Orkenyi, A.; Holstein, B.E. High agreement on family affluence between children’s and parents’ reports: International study of 11-year-old children. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, 1092–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Boyce, W.; Torsheim, T.; Currie, C.; Zambon, A. The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: Validation of an adolescent self-reported measure. Soc. Ind. Res. 2006, 78, 473–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Molcho, M.; Gabhainn, S.N.; Kelleher, C.C. Assessing the use of the family affluence scale (FAS) among Irish schoolchildren. Irish Med. J. 2007, 100, 37–39. [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, P.; Xu, G.L.; Li, M.; Cao, Z.W.; Guo, E.Q.; An, L.L.; Wang, N.P.; Zhang, J.N. Study on reliability and validity of the tinnitus evaluation questionnaire. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2012, 47, 716–719. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Skardal, M.; Western, I.M.; Ask, A.M.; Overby, N.C. Socioeconomic differences in selected dietary habits among Norwegian 13-14 year-olds: A cross-sectional study. Food Nutr. Res. 2014, 58, 23590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Xie, B.; Gilliland, F.D.; Li, Y.F.; Rockett, H.R. Effects of ethnicity, family income, and education on dietary intake among adolescents. Prev. Med. 2003, 36, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Fismen, A.S.; Smith, O.R.; Torsheim, T.; Rasmussen, M.; Pedersen Pagh, T.; Augustine, L.; Ojala, K.; Samdal, O. Trends in food habits and their relation to socioeconomic status among Nordic adolescents 2001/2002–2009/2010. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0148541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Shahar, D.; Shai, I.; Vardi, H.; Shahar, A.; Fraser, D. Diet and eating habits in high and low socioeconomic groups. Nutrition 2005, 21, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Vereecken, C.; Dupuy, M.; Rasmussen, M.; Kelly, C.; Nansel, T.R.; Al Sabbah, H.; Baldassari, D.; Jordan, M.D.; Maes, L.; Niclasen, B.V.; et al. Breakfast consumption and its socio-demographic and lifestyle correlates in schoolchildren in 41 countries participating in the HBSC study. Int. J. Public Health 2009, 54, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. De Coen, V.; Vansteelandt, S.; Maes, L.; Huybrechts, I.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Vereecken, C. Parental socioeconomic status and soft drink consumption of the child. The mediating proportion of parenting practices. Appetite 2012, 59, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. NÚV. Pohyb A Výživa (Physical Activity and Nutrition). Available online: http://pav.rvp.cz (accessed on 9 February 2016). (In Czech)
  48. Zdravá Strava do Škol (Healthy Food to School). Available online: http://www.zdravastravadoskol.cz (accessed on 10 November 2016). (In Czech)
  49. Skutečně Zdravá Škola (Healthy School). Available online: http://www.skutecnezdravaskola.cz (accessed on 9 February 2016). (In Czech)
  50. Happy Snack—Školní Automat Na Zdravou Svačinku (Happy Snack-Vending Machines for Schools). Available online: http://www.zdravastravadoskol.cz (accessed on 9 February 2016). (In Czech)
  51. SZIF. Ovoce a Zelenina do Škol (Free Fruit and Vegetable at School). Available online: www.ovocedoskol.szif.cz (accessed on 9 February 2016). (In Czech)
  52. Cutler, G.J.; Flood, A.; Hannan, P.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Multiple sociodemographic and socioenvironmental characteristics are correlated with major patterns of dietary intake in adolescents. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 2011, 111, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Story, M.; Neumark-Sztainer, D.; French, S. Individual and environmental influences on adolescent eating behaviors. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 2002, 102, S40–S51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Verstraeten, R.; Leroy, J.L.; Pieniak, Z.; Ochoa-Aviles, A.; Holdsworth, M.; Verbeke, W.; Maes, L.; Kolsteren, P. Individual and environmental factors influencing adolescents’ dietary behavior in low- and middle-income settings. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Barosh, L.; Friel, S.; Engelhardt, K.; Chan, L. The cost of a healthy and sustainable diet—Who can afford it? Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2014, 38, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dibsdall, L.A.; Lambert, N.; Bobbin, R.F.; Frewer, L.J. Low-income consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards access, availability and motivation to eat fruit and vegetables. Public Health Nutr. 2003, 6, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Daniel, C. Economic constraints on taste formation and the true cost of healthy eating. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 148, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Beauchamp, G.K.; Mennella, J.A. Flavor perception in human infants: Development and functional significance. Digestion 2011, 83, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Currie, C.; Roberts, C.; Morgan, A.; Smith, R.; Settertobulte, W.; Samdal, O.; Barnekow Rasmussen, V. Young People’s Health in Context; Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report from the 2001/2002 Survey; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  60. Currie, C.Z.C.; Morgan, A.; Currie, D.; de Looze, M.; Roberts, C.; Samdal, O.; Smith, O.R.F.; Barnekow, V. Social Determinants of Health and Well-Being among Young People. Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report from the 2009/2010 Survey; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dragano, N.; Bobak, M.; Wege, N.; Peasey, A.; Verde, P.E.; Kubinova, R.; Weyers, S.; Moebus, S.; Mohlenkamp, S.; Stang, A.; et al. Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and cardiovascular risk factors: A multilevel analysis of nine cities in the Czech Republic and Germany. BMC Public Health 2007, 7, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Fromel, K.; Mitas, J.; Kerr, J. The associations between active lifestyle, the size of a community and ses of the adult population in the Czech Republic. Health Place 2009, 15, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vasickova, J.; Roberson, D.N.; Fromel, K. The education level and socio-demographic determinants of physical activity in Czech adults. Hum. Mov. 2012, 13, 54–64. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kunesova, M.; Vignerova, J.; Steflova, A.; Parizkova, J.; Lajka, J.; Hainer, V.; Blaha, P.; Hlavaty, P.; Kalouskova, P.; Hlavata, K.; et al. Obesity of Czech children and adolescents: Relation to parental obesity and socioeconomic factors. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Veleminsky, M.; Pruchova, D.; Vitosova, A.; Lavickova, M.; Stransky, P. The relationship between family socioeconomic condition and childhood injury frequency in selected locations in the Czech Republic. Med. Sci. Monit. 2012, 18, PH19–PH27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Hebert, J.R.; Hurley, T.G.; Peterson, K.E.; Resnicow, K.; Thompson, F.E.; Yaroch, A.L.; Ehlers, M.; Midthune, D.; Williams, G.C.; Greene, G.W.; et al. Social desirability trait influences on self-reported dietary measures among diverse participants in a multicenter multiple risk factor trial. J. Nutr. 2008, 138, 226S–234S. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Klesges, L.M.; Baranowski, T.; Beech, B.; Cullen, K.; Murray, D.M.; Rochon, J.; Pratt, C. Social desirability bias in self-reported dietary, physical activity and weight concerns measures in 8- to 10-year-old African-American girls: Results from the girls health enrichment multisite studies (GEMS). Prev. Med. 2004, 38, S78–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Miller, T.M.; Abdel-Maksoud, M.F.; Crane, L.A.; Marcus, A.C.; Byers, T.E. Effects of social approval bias on self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption: A randomized controlled trial. Nutr. J. 2008, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hulshof, K.F.; Brussaard, J.H.; Kruizinga, A.G.; Telman, J.; Lowik, M.R. Socio-economic status, dietary intake and 10 y trends: The Dutch national food consumption survey. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 57, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Bel-Serrat, S.; Julian-Almarcegui, C.; Gonzalez-Gross, M.; Mouratidou, T.; Bornhorst, C.; Grammatikaki, E.; Kersting, M.; Cuenca-Garcia, M.; Gottrand, F.; Molnar, D.; et al. Correlates of dietary energy misreporting among European adolescents: The healthy lifestyle in Europe by nutrition in adolescence (HELENA) study. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 1439–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Schnohr, C.; Makransky, G.; Kreiner, S.; Torsheim, T.; Hofmann, F.; De Clercq, B. Item response drift in the family affluence scale: A study on three consecutive surveys of the health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) survey. Measurement 2013, 46, 3119–3126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Odds ratios of daily consumption by family affluence, 2014 vs. 2002.
Table 1. Odds ratios of daily consumption by family affluence, 2014 vs. 2002.
FAS 2002FAS 20142014 vs. 2002
OR 1–6LowMediumHighLow vs. MediumLow vs. HighLowMediumHighLow vs. MediumLow vs. HighLow FASMedium FASHigh FAS
% a% a% aOR95% CIOR95% CI% a% a% aOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CI
Daily soft drinks 128.928.629.61.00(0.87–1.14)1.08(0.85–1.37)16.014.815.00.91(0.76–1.10)0.94(0.75–1.17)0.47 ***(0.39–0.56)0.43 ***(0.37–0.50)0.41 ***(0.31–0.53)
Boys30.830.834.21.00(0.83–1.21)1.17(0.85–1.61)16.616.916.71.02(0.78–1.34)1.01(0.74–1.38)0.45 ***(0.34–0.59)0.46 ***(0.38–0.55)0.39 ***(0.27–0.55)
Girls27.026.325.00.97(0.81–1.16)0.90(0.62–1.31)15.312.713.20.81(0.62–1.05)0.84(0.62–1.15)0.49 ***(0.38–0.63)0.41 ***(0.33–0.50)0.46 ***(0.30–0.70)
Daily sweets 226.924.620.30.90(0.78–1.02)0.72 *(0.55–0.94)20.720.522.80.99(0.84–1.17)1.13(0.94–1.37)0.71 ***(0.60–0.84)0.79 ***(0.69–0.90)1.12(0.84–1.48)
Boys26.924.625.10.89(0.73–1.08)0.91(0.65–1.28)21.120.023.50.93(0.72–1.19)1.14(0.87–1.50)0.73 *(0.57–0.94)0.77 **(0.63–0.93)0.92(0.64–1.31)
Girls26.824.615.50.89(0.74–1.07)0.50 **(0.32–0.78)20.220.922.11.04(0.83–1.31)1.12(0.86–1.46)0.69 **(0.55–0.87)0.81 *(0.67–0.97)1.55(0.98–2.46)
Daily fruit 337.544.252.01.28 ***(1.14–1.45)1.67 ***(1.34–2.08)30.936.843.51.30 ***(1.12–1.50)1.70 ***(1.44–2.00)0.73 ***(0.63–0.85)0.74 ***(0.66–0.83)0.75 *(0.59–0.94)
Boys31.337.042.71.29 **(1.07–1.55)1.64 **(1.20–2.22)28.032.537.71.24(0.99–1.55)1.55 ***(1.22–1.99)0.86(0.68–1.08)0.82 *(0.69–0.97)0.81(0.59–1.11)
Girls43.751.361.31.36 ***(1.16–1.60)2.05 ***(1.47–2.86)33.841.149.31.37 ***(1.13–1.66)1.91 ***(1.53–2.39)0.66 ***(0.54–0.80)0.66 ***(0.57–0.77)0.62 **(0.43–0.87)
Daily vegetables 424.129.334.41.28 ***(1.12–1.6)1.54 ***(1.22–2.00)22.927.930.91.29 ***(1.10–1.52)1.48 ***(1.24–1.77)0.93(0.79–1.00)0.94(0.83–1.07)0.89(0.70–1.14)
Boys20.725.126.51.28 *(1.04–1.58)1.38(0.98–1.94)19.724.426.11.32 *(1.03–1.69)1.44 **(1.09–1.90)0.94(0.72–1.23)0.97(0.80–1.16)0.98(0.69–1.39)
Girls27.433.442.31.33 **(1.11–1.58)1.94 ***(1.39–2.71)26.031.335.71.30 *(1.06–1.60)1.59 ***(1.25–2.01)0.93(0.75–1.16)0.91(0.77-1.07)0.76(0.54–1.08)
Daily breakfast (weekday) 549.453.553.11.23 **(1.09–1.38)1.24(0.99–1.54)54.256.658.31.11(0.96–1.27)1.19 *(1.01–1.40)1.26 **(1.09–1.45)1.13 *(1.01–1.27)1.21(0.96–1.53
Boys57.559.257.31.07(0.89–1.28)0.99(0.73–1.34)55.959.060.81.14(0.93–1.40)1.22(0.97–1.55)0.93(0.75–1.16)0.99(0.84–1.17)1.15(0.84–1.58)
Girls41.247.848.81.31 **(1.11–1.54)1.36(0.98–1.89)52.554.255.81.07(0.89–1.29)1.14(0.92–1.43)1.58 ***(1.30–1.92)1.29 ***(1.11–1.51)1.33(0.94–1.87)
Daily breakfast (weekend) 684.985.688.41.04(0.88–1.23)1.37(0.97–1.92)83.285.184.51.18(0.98–1.42)1.10(0.89–1.37)0.87(0.71–1.06)0.99(0.84–1.15)0.70*(0.49–0.99)
Boys83.084.890.41.14(0.90–1.44)1.93 **(1.19–3.14)83.282.182.10.93(0.70–1.22)0.92(0.68–1.26)1.02(0.76–1.36)0.83(0.67–1.03)0.49 **(0.30–0.80)
Girls86.786.386.30.97(0.76–1.22)0.97(0.60–1.56)83.188.186.81.51 **(1.16–1.97)1.34(0.98–1.82)0.76 *(0.58–1.00)1.18(0.94–1.49)1.04(0.63–1.72)
Note: FAS—family affluence scale; % a—percentage of adolescents who performed the eating behaviour at least daily; OR 1–6 of daily consumption for each behaviour; logistic regression Enter method (LR): low vs. medium/low vs. high FAS group (reference group is low FAS)/2014 vs. 2002 for each FAS group (reference group is a cohort of 2002: OR—odds ratio, 95% CI—95% confidence interval, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top