↓ Skip to main content

Does the importance of dietary costs for fruit and vegetable intake vary by socioeconomic position?

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Nutrition, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Does the importance of dietary costs for fruit and vegetable intake vary by socioeconomic position?
Published in
British Journal of Nutrition, September 2015
DOI 10.1017/s0007114515003025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joreintje D. Mackenbach, Soren Brage, Nita G. Forouhi, Simon J. Griffin, Nicholas J. Wareham, Pablo Monsivais

Abstract

Evidence suggests that diets meeting recommendations for fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake are more costly. Dietary costs may be a greater constraint on the diet quality of people of lower socioeconomic position (SEP). The aim of this study was to examine whether dietary costs are more strongly associated with F&V intake in lower-SEP groups than in higher-SEP groups. Data on individual participants' education and income were available from a population-based, cross-sectional study of 10 020 British adults. F&V intake and dietary costs (GBP/d) were derived from a semi-quantitative FFQ. Dietary cost estimates were based on UK food prices. General linear models were used to assess associations between SEP, quartiles of dietary costs and F&V intake. Effect modification of SEP gradients by dietary costs was examined with interaction terms. Analysis demonstrated that individuals with lowest quartile dietary costs, low income and low education consumed less F&V than individuals with higher dietary costs, high income and high education. Significant interaction between SEP and dietary costs indicated that the association between dietary costs and F&V intake was stronger for less-educated and lower-income groups. That is, socioeconomic differences in F&V intake were magnified among individuals who consumed lowest-cost diets. Such amplification of socioeconomic inequalities in diet among those consuming low-cost diets indicates the need to address food costs in strategies to promote healthy diets. In addition, the absence of socioeconomic inequalities for individuals with high dietary costs suggests that high dietary costs can compensate for lack of other material, or psychosocial resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Unspecified 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Social Sciences 16 21%
Unspecified 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,781,434
of 13,453,528 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Nutrition
#3,046
of 4,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,253
of 248,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Nutrition
#46
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,453,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.