Next Article in Journal
Gastric Cancer and the Daily Intake of the Major Dish Groups Contributing to Sodium Intake: A Case-Control Study in Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Precision Nutrition for Alzheimer’s Prevention in ApoE4 Carriers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/nu13041363
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Unhealthy Diet Pattern Mediates the Disproportionate Prevalence of Obesity among Adults with Socio-Economic Disadvantage: An Australian Representative Cross-Sectional Study

by
Canaan Negash Seifu
1,*,
Paul Patrick Fahey
2,3 and
Evan Atlantis
1,3,4
1
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
2
School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
3
Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
4
Discipline of Medicine, Nepean Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2021, 13(4), 1363; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041363
Submission received: 25 February 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2021 / Accepted: 15 April 2021 / Published: 19 April 2021
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The role of unhealthy dietary pattern in the association between socio-economic factors and obesity is unclear. The aim was to examine the association between socio-economic disadvantage and obesity and to assess mediation effect of unhealthy dietary pattern defined using the Mediterranean diet criteria. The data source was the Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. The study sample included 7744 participants aged 18 years and over, 28% of whom had obesity. We used the Australian Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) classification system for categorizing socio-economic disadvantage; calculated the Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) using standard criteria; and used measured body mass index to define obesity. We conducted a mediation analysis using log–binomial models to generate the prevalence ratio for obesity and the proportion mediated by the MDS. The most disadvantaged group was associated with higher level of obesity after controlling for covariates (1.40, 95% CI 1.25, 1.56) compared to the least disadvantaged group, and in a dose–response way for each decreasing SEIFA quintile. The relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and obesity was mediated by the MDS (4.0%, 95% CI 1.9, 8.0). Public health interventions should promote healthy dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean diet, to reduce obesity, especially in communities with high socio-economic disadvantage.

1. Introduction

Obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2, is a rising global health issue and is estimated to have affected 390 million women and 281 million men in 2016 [1]. It is also one of the leading risk factors for an increased fatal and non-fatal disease burden worldwide [2,3]. In high-income countries, obesity is more common in individuals living in areas with high socio-economic disadvantage [4,5]. In Australia, adults in the lowest socio-economic areas were 1.7-fold more likely to have obesity compared to those in the highest socio-economic areas (after adjusting for differences in age structure) for the period 2017 to 2018. Thus, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity was 37% vs. 26% in men, and 38% vs. 22% in women when comparing the lowest socio-economic areas vs. the highest socio-economic areas [6].
Despite the large-scale investment in community-based projects to prevent weight gain in Australia [7], the prevalence of obesity has increased in recent decades from 19% in 1995 to 31% in 2017–2018, and remains persistently high [8]. There is good evidence that societal changes during this period have likely resulted in population-wide increase in food consumption, especially from energy dense and nutrient poor foods [9,10]. These transitions to obesogenic environments in societies are the aspects which could help explain worldwide changes in BMI and the differences between countries in the current rates of obesity, especially among vulnerable populations.
Unhealthy diet patterns are typically associated with high energy intake specifically from energy dense and nutrient poor foods [11]. A recently published umbrella review showed that higher adherence to the Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) was consistently associated with a decreased risk of weight gain or obesity in adult populations [12]. Thus, a healthy diet pattern, such as the Mediterranean diet (mainly consisting of fruits, vegetables, cereals and fish, olive oil, and a moderate amount of red wine), may help prevent weight gain [13,14]. While there is good evidence that socio-economic disadvantage significantly predicts both unhealthy dietary pattern and obesity, the association between all three variables is unclear [15,16,17]. To our knowledge, there is very limited evidence on this association [18]. To address this knowledge gap, we aimed to determine whether unhealthy diet pattern, defined using the MDS, mediates the association between socio-economic status and obesity in adults.

2. Materials and Methods

We present this study according to the journal’s formatting requirements and the STROBE guidelines for reporting cross-sectional studies [19].

2.1. Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We used data from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (NNPAS)—conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2011–2012. The survey used a cross-sectional multistage area with an initial sample of 14,400 private dwellings that yielded a final sample of 9435 adults. The methodology has been published in detail elsewhere [20]. For this study, we selected participants who were adults (aged 18 years or over) and not pregnant or breast feeding at the time of the survey (n = 7744).

2.2. Ethics

The Australian Health Survey was conducted by the ABS under the Census and Statistics Act 1905 which authorized the ABS to undertake the household interview component of the survey without requiring ethical approval. In October 2011, the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing’s Departmental Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the biomedical data collections. Furthermore, written informed consent was obtained from participants for the in-home component and pathology collection center component separately [21]. The de-identified dataset is made available to researchers subject to the requirements of the ABS [22].

2.3. Data Sources/Measurement

The NNPAS which is part of the Australian Health Survey (AHS) was conducted from May 2011 to June 2012 in 9500 fully responding private dwellings [20]. Trained ABS interviewers employed a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) to collect data from the selected adult member of the household. Twenty-four-hour diet recalls were collected using the five-pass ‘Automated Multiple-Pass Method’ (an automated questionnaire that guides the interviewer through a system designed to maximize respondents’ opportunities for remembering and reporting foods eaten in the previous 24 h). It was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and it was modified with assistance from Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) to reflect the Australian food supply. Food intake was then coded and classified using “AUSNUT 2011–2013” constructed by FSANZ. For this study, we used dietary data from day one of the 24-h recalls.
Physical measurements were collected towards the end of the NNPAS survey and voluntarily; participants were encouraged to remove shoes and heavy clothing before their measurements were taken. The ABS interviewers used digital scales to measure weight (maximum 150 kg) and recorded it to the nearest 0.1 kg. Height (maximum 210 cm) was measured using a stadiometer and was recorded to the nearest 0.1 cm. Height measurements were repeated on random 10% sample of respondents to validate the measurements.

2.4. Variables

All survey questions are listed in the AHS User Guide [23].

2.5. Outcome

Obesity and non-obesity were defined by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m2 respectively according to the World Health Organization criteria using measured weight and height.

2.6. Predictors

Study predictors include Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) and the MDS. The SEIFA is a measure of socio-economic advantage and disadvantage, created using variables such as income, education, or housing according to residential postcode. The SEIFA was categorized into quintiles. Lower quintiles are indicative of individuals living in areas with higher levels of disadvantage. For the MDS, we followed the method proposed by Tricopoulou et al. [24], since it was one of the most common one reported in the published literature to assess adherence to the Mediterranean diet [12]. A value of 0 or 1 was given to nine components according to sex-specific medians. For potentially healthy components (vegetables, fruits and nuts, and cereal), study participants whose consumption was below the median were assigned a value of 0, and study participants whose consumption was equal to or above the median were assigned a value of 1. For legumes and fish, a value of 1 was given for any intake above zero.
For potentially unhealthy components (meat and dairy products), study participants whose consumption was below the median were assigned a value of 1, and study participants whose consumption was at or above the median were assigned a value of 0. For ethanol, a value of 1 was assigned to men who consumed between 10 and 50 g per day and to women who consumed between 5 and 25 g per day. Lastly, for fat intake, we used the ratio of monounsaturated lipids to saturated lipids and study participants whose consumption was below the median were assigned a value of 0, and study participants whose consumption was at or above the median were assigned a value of 1. The scores for each of the 9 components were summed to give the total MDS which ranged from 0 (minimal adherence to the traditional Mediterranean diet) to 9 (maximal adherence). The NNPAS categorized consumption as discretionary and non-discretionary [20]; in this study, we used food groups from non-discretionary sources to construct the MDS.

2.7. Covariates

Our analyses were adjusted for sex (male/female), country of birth (Australia/other English-speaking countries/other), marital status (married or de facto/not married), hours usually worked each week (not in workforce or unemployed/1–24 h/25–39 h/40 h and more), and whether exercise last week met 150 min recommended guidelines (National Physical Activity Guidelines for Australian adults) [20] (met recommended guidelines/did not meet or do not know); smoking status (current smoker/ex-smoker/never smoked), energy density (first tertile/second tertile/third tertile), and self-reported long-term health conditions (no condition/one condition only/multiple conditions) were included. We calculated energy density by dividing the total energy from food by total gram of food (kJ/g).

2.8. Bias

The response rate in the NNPAS was 77%. The dietary data in the NNPAS is from a 24-h recall method which can introduce recall bias when study participants forget the food and beverages they have consumed or misreport foods to comply with societal expectations.

2.9. Statistical Methods

We present the characteristics of the study participants by obesity and the MDS (Table S1). We tested the difference between the characteristics and the MDS or obesity group using Pearson’s Chi-square tests and their p-values. A p-value of <0.05 was considered as a statistically significant difference along with clinical importance. Because the prevalence of obesity in the sample was greater than 10% (i.e., 28%), we used log–binary regression models [25] to assess the independent associations with obesity; reported as prevalence ratios with associated 95% confidence intervals.
We hypothesized SEIFA would be associated with obesity both directly and indirectly via MDS as a mediator (Figure 1). Therefore, we conducted a mediation analysis to test this hypothesis in a subsample comparing lowest vs. highest SEIFA. We performed the analysis by fitting a log–binomial model for the outcome (obesity, yes = 1 and no = 0) and the MDS-mediator (0–4 = 1 and 5–9 = 0). We obtained prevalence ratios of direct effect, indirect (mediated) effect, and total effect. We calculated percentages by multiplying the estimate with 100%. We conducted the statistical analyses using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and the ‘mediation’ package [26] in R 4.0.3 to perform the mediation analysis.

3. Results

The study sample included 7744 adults. Of these, 2185 (28.2%) were classified with obesity. From these adults, 1549 (70.9%) had lower MDS (0–4), 481 (22.0%) lived in most disadvantaged areas (SEIFA-lowest 20%), 1217 (55.7%) were married, and 834 (38.2%) were not in workforce or unemployed (Table 1).
A total of 5084 (65.7%) participants had lower MDS (0–4); of these, 1018 (20.0%) participants lived in most disadvantaged areas and 1822 (35.8%) were not in workforce or unemployed (Table S1).
In terms of the association between SEIFA and obesity, the prevalence of obesity increased with socio-economic disadvantage categories in a linear way, independent of covariates (Models 1–6) (Table 2). The strength of this relationship slightly weakened, but remained robust even after adjustment for all covariates (Model 6). Furthermore, SEIFA was associated with the MDS (Table S2).
To do the mediation analysis (Table 3), we first assessed the association between SEIFA and obesity (direct effect); lowest SEIFA (most disadvantaged) was associated with obesity. Second, we examined path A and path B; the lowest SEIFA (most disadvantaged) was associated with lower MDS (0–4) (Path A) and lower MDS (0–4) was associated with higher prevalence of obesity (Path B), respectively. The results showed a significant effect (PR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19) of lowest SEIFA associated with lower MDS (0–4) (Path A), and a significant effect (PR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10, 1.29) of lower MDS (0–4) associated with obesity (Path B). Finally, SEIFA had an indirect effect (PR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01) on obesity and 4.0% of the total effect of lowest SEIFA (most disadvantaged) on obesity is due to SEIFA’s impact on the MDS.

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Finding

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the mediating role of unhealthy diet pattern, defined using low MDS, in the association between socio-economic disadvantage and obesity. First, we found that socio-economic disadvantage was independently associated with increased prevalence ratios for obesity that ranged from 18% to 40% percentage points with each decreasing SEIFA quintile group in a dose–response way (Model 6. Table 2). This is consistent with several studies from high income countries like the USA, the UK, and Canada [27,28,29]. Second, we found that socio-economic disadvantage was independently associated with low MDS (Model 5, in Table S2). Third, our mediation model showed that at least 4% of the association between the lowest SEIFA (highest disadvantage) and obesity prevalence was mediated by low MDS (i.e., fewer elements of the MDS). These findings suggest that a significant proportion of the prevalence of obesity in the community could have been theoretically prevented with effective public health policy and/or community-based interventions targeting unhealthy dietary patterns. For instance, interventions focusing on a ‘healthy dietary pattern’ like the MDS could have theoretically prevented more than 200,000 cases of obesity, which would have yielded substantial health and economic benefits for Australians [30,31].
Our finding demonstrating a mediation role of unhealthy diet confirms, for the first time, a plausible mechanism explaining the increased risk of obesity associated with socio-economic disadvantage. There is good evidence showing that exposure to socio-economic disadvantage is associated with an increased consumption of nutrient-poor and energy-dense foods (Path A); i.e., consuming more processed meat, refined grain, and sweets, but less fruit and vegetables, whole grains, or fish [15,32,33]. This phenomenon is likely explained by the high cost and low availability barriers to accessing healthy foods in societies around the world [34,35]. This theory is supported by findings from a cohort study which found that the higher daily cost of following a Mediterranean dietary pattern compared with a western dietary pattern was a predictor of weight gain among Spanish university graduates [36]. Furthermore, a systematic review suggests that environmental factors such as accessibility to supermarkets/takeaway outlets or residing in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area may contribute to obesogenic dietary behavior [37]. Finally, there is evidence suggesting that when food retail environments are unstable, low income areas are more affected by obesity than high income areas [38]. Thus, interventions on taxation of unhealthy foods supplemented with other policies such as subsidizing healthy foods could be helpful in preventing obesity [39,40,41]. Strategies focusing on fiscal measures (e.g., food vouchers for disadvantaged communities) and dietary standards [42] and healthy food promotion in retail environments may encourage healthy eating behavior in communities [43].
There is also good evidence showing an association between MDS and obesity (Path B). Unhealthy diet pattern has been associated with an increased risk of weight gain [44] or obesity [45,46]. By contrast, our recently published umbrella review of 16 systematic reviews showed that high adherence to the MDS was consistently associated with a decreased risk of obesity [12]. Previous research has shown that the nutrient-rich low-energy composition of the diet pattern defined using a high MDS [47] was associated with preventing weight gain in the long term [48]. Collectively, this evidence suggests that it may help slow or even reverse the rising prevalence of obesity in some countries. In addition, clinical trials show that there are health benefits of consuming a Mediterranean diet pattern beyond body weight status, such as better cardiovascular health [49,50] and overall mortality [51].

4.2. Study Strength and Limitation

The main strength of our study is that we used a subsample from a nationally conducted survey which collected measured height and weight data for accurate classification of obesity status. However, several limitations are noteworthy. First, we used dietary data from day one of 24-h recalls, which may not reflect the usual intake of study participants. Second, because of the cross-sectional design of the study, establishing temporality in exposure, mediator, and outcome variables means that interpretations of our findings should be cautious. Finally, there is no universal agreement on how to measure or define the Mediterranean diet.

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that unhealthy diet patterns could partially mediate the association between socio-economic disadvantage and obesity. Public health policy and interventions to increase population-wide consumption of healthy diet patterns, such as the Mediterranean, in communities, especially those most disadvantaged groups in the society could help reduce the socio-economic inequalities of obesity.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu13041363/s1, Table S1: Participant characteristics by the MDS in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744); Table S2: Multivariable adjusted association between SEIFA and the MDS in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, (C.N.S., P.P.F. and E.A.); Formal Analysis, (C.N.S., P.P.F. and E.A.); Writing, (C.N.S., P.P.F. and E.A.). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding for publication from the WESTERN SYDNEY UNIVERSITY.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, because it involves the use of existing collections of data only and the data used is non-identifiable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here, subject to the ABS requirements https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/MicrodataDownload, accessed on 23 August 2019.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the study participants.

Conflicts of Interest

E.A. has received honoraria for speaker engagements, research, and conference travel from Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd.; he was the Founding President, and now serves as the Secretary, of the National Association of Clinical Obesity Services. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Collaboration NCDRF. Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet 2017, 390, 2627–2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. The GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators; Afshin, A.; Forouzanfar, M.H.; Reitsma, M.B.; Sur, P.; Estep, K.; Lee, A.; Marczak, L.; Mokdad, A.H.; Moradi-Lakeh, M.; et al. Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lim, S.S.; Vos, T.; Flaxman, A.D.; Danaei, G.; Shibuya, K.; Adair-Rohani, H.; A AlMazroa, M.; Amann, M.; Anderson, H.R.; Andrews, K.G.; et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Mackenbach, J.P.; Stirbu, I.; Roskam, A.J.; Schaap, M.M.; Menvielle, G.; Leinsalu, M.; Kunst, A.E. European Union Working Group on socioeconomic inequalities in H: Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 2468–2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. McLaren, L. Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiol. Rev. 2007, 29, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. ABS. National Health Survey, 2017–2018; Customised Data Report; Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, Australia, 2019.
  7. Nichols, M.S.; Reynolds, R.C.; Waters, E.; Gill, T.; King, L.; Swinburn, B.A.; Allender, S. Community-based efforts to prevent obesity: Australia-wide survey of projects. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2013, 24, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Overweight and Obesity: An Interactive Insight. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/overweight-and-obesity-an-interactive-insight/contents/time-trends (accessed on 15 February 2021).
  9. Rodgers, A.; Woodward, A.; Swinburn, B.; Dietz, W.H. Prevalence trends tell us what did not precipitate the US obesity epidemic. Lancet Public Health 2018, 3, e162–e163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2793–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Seifu, C.N.; Fahey, P.P.; Hailemariam, T.G.; Frost, S.A.; Atlantis, E. Dietary patterns associated with obesity outcomes in adults: An umbrella review of systematic reviews. Public Health Nutr. 2021, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Buckland, G.; Bach, A.; Serra-Majem, L. Obesity and the Mediterranean diet: A systematic review of observational and intervention studies. Obes. Rev. 2008, 9, 582–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Franquesa, M.; Pujol-Busquets, G.; García-Fernández, E.; Rico, L.; Shamirian-Pulido, L.; Aguilar-Martínez, A.; Medina, F.-X.; Serra-Majem, L.; Bach-Faig, A. Mediterranean Diet and cardiodiabesity: A systematic review through evidence-based answers to key clinical questions. Nutrients 2019, 11, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kell, K.P.; Judd, S.E.; Pearson, K.E.; Shikany, J.M.; Fernandez, J.R. Associations between socio-economic status and dietary patterns in US black and white adults. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 113, 1792–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Marques-Vidal, P.; Waeber, G.; Vollenweider, P.; Bochud, M.; Stringhini, S.; Guessous, I. Sociodemographic and behavioural determinants of a healthy diet in Switzerland. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 67, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Zhou, L.; Cao, D.; Si, Y.; Zhu, X.; Du, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Z. Income-related inequities of adult obesity and central obesity in China: Evidence from the China Health and Nutrition Survey 1997–2011. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e034288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. de Mestral, C.; Chatelan, A.; Marques-Vidal, P.; Stringhini, S.; Bochud, M. The contribution of diet quality to socioeconomic inequalities in obesity: A population-based study of Swiss adults. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. ABS. Australian Health Survey: Users’ Guide, 2011–2013; Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, Australia, 2014.
  21. The Australian Health Survey. Available online: www.abs.gov.au/australianhealthsurvey (accessed on 16 February 2021).
  22. ABS. MicrodataDownload; Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, Australia, 2021.
  23. ABS. National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011–2012: Questionnaire; Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, Australia, 2013.
  24. Trichopoulou, A.; Costacou, T.; Bamia, C.; Trichopoulos, D. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and survival in a Greek population. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 2599–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. McNutt, L.-A.; Wu, C.; Xue, X.; Hafner, J.P. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 157, 940–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tingley, D.; Yamamoto, T.; Hirose, K.; Keele, L.; Imai, K. Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Bentley, R.A.; Ormerod, P.; Ruck, D.J. Recent origin and evolution of obesity-income correlation across the United States. Palgrave Commun. 2018, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, T.J.; von dem Knesebeck, O. Income and obesity: What is the direction of the relationship? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e019862. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Ameye, H.; Swinnen, J. Obesity, income and gender: The changing global relationship. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 23, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Bray, G.A.; Frühbeck, G.; Ryan, D.H.; Wilding, J.P.H. Management of obesity. Lancet 2016, 387, 1947–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. PwC. Weighing the Cost of Obesity: A Case for Action; PwC: Barangaroo, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Drewnowski, A. Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutr. Rev. 2009, 67, S36–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giskes, K.; Avendano, M.; Brug, J.; Kunst, A.E. A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults. Obes. Rev. 2010, 11, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rao, M.; Afshin, A.; Singh, G.; Mozaffarian, D. Do healthier foods and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e004277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hilmers, A.; Hilmers, D.C.; Dave, J. Neighborhood disparities in access to healthy foods and their effects on environmental justice. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 1644–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lopez, C.N.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Sanchez-Villegas, A.; Alonso, A.; Pimenta, A.M.; Bes-Rastrollo, M. Costs of Mediterranean and western dietary patterns in a Spanish cohort and their relationship with prospective weight change. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 920–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giskes, K.M.; Van Lenthe, F.J.; Avendano-Pabon, M.; Brug, J. A systematic review of environmental factors and obesogenic dietary intakes among adults: Are we getting closer to understanding obesogenic environments? Obes. Rev. 2010, 12, e95–e106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Filomena, S.; Scanlin, K.; Morland, K.B. Brooklyn, New York foodscape 2007–2011: A five-year analysis of stability in food retail environments. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Franck, C.; Grandi, S.M.; Eisenberg, M.J. Taxing junk food to counter obesity. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 1949–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tamir, O.; Cohen-Yogev, T.; Furman-Assaf, S.; Endevelt, R. Taxation of sugar sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods: A qualitative study of key opinion leaders’ views. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2018, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Blakely, T.; Cleghorn, C.; Mizdrak, A.; Waterlander, W.; Nghiem, N.; Swinburn, B.; Wilson, N.; Ni Mhurchu, C. The effect of food taxes and subsidies on population health and health costs: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e404–e413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brambila-Macias, J.; Shankar, B.; Capacci, S.; Mazzocchi, M.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.; Verbeke, W.; Traill, W.B. Policy interventions to promote healthy eating: A review of what works, what does not, and what is promising. Food Nutr. Bull. 2011, 32, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fergus, L.; Seals, K.; Holston, D. Nutrition interventions in low-income rural and urban retail environments: A systematic review. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mozaffarian, D.; Hao, T.; Rimm, E.B.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 2392–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Mu, M.; Xu, L.-F.; Hu, N.; Wu, J.; Bai, M.-J. Dietary patterns and overweight/obesity: A review article. Iran. J. Public Health 2017, 46, 869–876. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hawkes, C.; Smith, T.G.; Jewell, J.; Wardle, J.; A Hammond, R.; Friel, S.; Thow, A.M.; Kain, J. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet 2015, 385, 2410–2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Willett, W.C.; Sacks, F.; Trichopoulou, A.; Drescher, G.; Ferro-Luzzi, A.; Helsing, E.; Trichopoulos, D. Mediterranean diet pyramid: A cultural model for healthy eating. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995, 61, 1402S–1406S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Agnoli, C.; Sieri, S.; Ricceri, F.; Giraudo, M.T.; Masala, G.; Assedi, M.; Panico, S.; Mattiello, A.; Tumino, R.; Giurdanella, M.C.; et al. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and long-term changes in weight and waist circumference in the EPIC-Italy cohort. Nutr. Diabetes 2018, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Martínez-González, M.A.; Gea, A.; Ruiz-Canela, M. The Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular health. Circ. Res. 2019, 124, 779–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Jaacks, L.M.; Sher, S.; De Staercke, C.; Porkert, M.; Alexander, W.R.; Jones, D.P.; Vaccarino, V.; Ziegler, T.R.; Quyyumi, A.A. Pilot randomized controlled trial of a Mediterranean diet or diet supplemented with fish oil, walnuts, and grape juice in overweight or obese US adults. BMC Nutr. 2018, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dinu, M.; Pagliai, G.; Casini, A.; Sofi, F. Mediterranean diet and multiple health outcomes: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 72, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 13 01363 g001 550
Figure 1. Mediation analysis model of associations between SEIFA and obesity, mediated by adherence to a Mediterranean diet adjusted for covariates. Total effect equals indirect effect + direct effect.
Figure 1. Mediation analysis model of associations between SEIFA and obesity, mediated by adherence to a Mediterranean diet adjusted for covariates. Total effect equals indirect effect + direct effect.
Nutrients 13 01363 g001
Table
Table 1. Participant characteristics by obesity category in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744).
Table 1. Participant characteristics by obesity category in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744).
Obesity Statusp-Value
Number (Percent)
Without Obesity
BMI 18.5–29.9 kg/m2
n = 5559		With Obesity
BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2
n = 2185
MDS 10–43535 (63.6)1549 (70.9)<0.001
5–92024 (36.4)636 (29.1)
SEIFA 2Most disadvantaged970 (17.4)481 (22.0)<0.001
Second quintile1057 (19.0)523 (23.9)
Third quintile1134 (20.4)418 (19.1)
Fourth quintile1001 (18.0)370 (16.9)
Least disadvantaged1397 (25.1)393 (18.0)
SexMale2718 (48.9)1030 (47.1)0.1648
Female2841 (51.1)1155 (52.9)
Country of birthAustralia3849 (69.2)1634 (74.8)<0.001
Other English-speaking countries700 (12.6)269 (12.3)
Other countries1010 (18.2)282 (12.9)
Marital statusMarried/de facto2899 (52.1)1217 (55.7)0.005
Not married2660 (47.9)968 (44.3)
Hours usually worked each weekNot in workforce/unemployed1834 (33.0)834 (38.2)<0.001
1–24 h752 (13.5)247 (11.3)
25–39 h1169 (21.0)434 (19.9)
40 h and more1804 (32.5)670 (30.7)
Energy density 3First tertile1764 (31.7)817 (37.4)<0.001
Second tertile1885 (33.9)697 (31.9)
Third tertile1910 (34.4)671 (30.7)
Smoking statusCurrent smoker1084 (19.5)391 (17.9)<0.001
Ex-smoker1700 (30.6)844 (38.6)
Never smoked2775 (49.9)950 (43.5)
Whether exercise last week, met 150 min recommended guidelinesMet recommended guidelines3002 (54.0)935 (42.8)<0.001
Did not meet or do not know2557 (46.0)1250 (57.2)
Long-term conditionsNo condition4413 (79.4)1377 (63.0)<0.001
One condition only773 (13.9)473 (21.6)
Multiple conditions373 (6.7)335 (15.3)
1 Mediterranean diet score, 2 Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage—2011—SA1—Quintiles—National, 3 Energy density- First tertile (0.00–2.21); Second tertile (2.22–3.08); Third tertile (3.09–14.09).
Table
Table 2. Multivariable adjusted association between SEIFA and obesity in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744).
Table 2. Multivariable adjusted association between SEIFA and obesity in the NNPAS 2011 to 2012 (n = 7744).
SEIFA 1Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6
PR (95%CI)PR (95%CI)PR (95%CI)PR (95%CI)PR (95%CI)PR (95%CI)
Most disadvantaged1.51(1.35, 1.69) ***1.51(1.35, 1.69) ***1.48(1.32, 1.66) ***1.46(1.30, 1.63) ***1.46(1.30, 1.63) ***1.40(1.25, 1.56) ***
Second quintile1.51(1.35, 1.69) ***1.51(1.35, 1.68) ***1.45(1.30, 1.62) ***1.43(1.28, 1.60) ***1.43(1.28, 1.59) ***1.38(1.24, 1.54) ***
Third quintile1.23(1.09, 1.38) **1.22(1.09, 1.38) **1.20(1.06, 1.35) **1.19(1.05, 1.34) **1.18(1.05, 1.33) **1.18(1.05, 1.32) **
Fourth quintile1.23(1.09, 1.39) **1.24(1.09, 1.40) **1.23(1.09, 1.38) **1.22(1.08, 1.38) **1.22(1.08, 1.37) **1.20(1.06, 1.35) **
Least disadvantagedReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
Notes: Model 1, unadjusted; Model 2, adjusted for sex, country of birth, marital status, hours usually worked each week; Model 3, adjusted for whether exercise last week met 150 min recommended guidelines, smoking status; Model 4, adjusted for energy density; Model 5, adjusted for MDS; Model 6, adjusted for long-term conditions. 1 Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage—2011—SA1—Quintiles—National. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Mediation analysis of the association between SEIFA and obesity mediated by adherence to Mediterranean diet (n = 7744).
Table 3. Mediation analysis of the association between SEIFA and obesity mediated by adherence to Mediterranean diet (n = 7744).
PR (95%CI)Proportion Mediated by MDS
% (95% CI)
Path A (SEIFA→MDS)1.13(1.08, 1.19) ***
Path B (MDS→Obesity)1.19(1.10, 1.29) ***
Path C direct effect (SEIFA→Obesity)1.09(1.06, 1.12) ***
Indirect effect (SEIFA→Obesity mediated by MDS)1.00(1.00, 1.01) ***
Total effect (SEIFA→MDS→Obesity)1.09(1.06, 1.13) ***4.0(1.9, 8.0)
Notes: SEIFA—(5 categories), reference—Least disadvantaged; MDS- (0–4) vs. (5–9); Obesity- Yes = 1 vs. No = 0. All models were adjusted for sex, country of birth, marital status, hours usually worked each week, whether exercise last week met 150 min recommended guidelines, smoking status, energy density and long-term conditions. *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seifu, C.N.; Fahey, P.P.; Atlantis, E. Unhealthy Diet Pattern Mediates the Disproportionate Prevalence of Obesity among Adults with Socio-Economic Disadvantage: An Australian Representative Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041363

AMA Style

Seifu CN, Fahey PP, Atlantis E. Unhealthy Diet Pattern Mediates the Disproportionate Prevalence of Obesity among Adults with Socio-Economic Disadvantage: An Australian Representative Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients. 2021; 13(4):1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041363

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seifu, Canaan Negash, Paul Patrick Fahey, and Evan Atlantis. 2021. "Unhealthy Diet Pattern Mediates the Disproportionate Prevalence of Obesity among Adults with Socio-Economic Disadvantage: An Australian Representative Cross-Sectional Study" Nutrients 13, no. 4: 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041363

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop