The journal of nutrition, health & aging

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 115–121 | Cite as

Adherence to dietary guidelines for fruit, vegetables and fish among older Dutch adults; the role of education, income and job prestige

  • S. Coosje Dijkstra
  • J. E. Neter
  • I. A. Brouwer
  • M. Huisman
  • M. Visser
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Little is known about socio-economic differences in dietary intake among older adults. In this study we describe self-reported dietary adherence to the fruit, vegetables and fish guidelines among older Dutch adults and investigate the independent associations of three socio-economic status (SES) indicators with adherence to these guidelines.

Design

Cross sectional data-analyses.

Settings

The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA), the Netherlands.

Subjects

1057 community dwelling older adults, aged 55–85 years.

Measurements

Fruit, vegetable and fish intake was assessed using a short food frequency questionnaire. We measured SES using self-reported levels of education, household income and occupational prestige.

Results

82.5% of the respondents reported to adhere to the fruit guideline, 65.1% to the vegetables guideline, and 31.7% to the fish guideline. After adjustment for confounders and the other two SES indicators, respondents in the lowest education group adhered less often to the vegetables guideline (OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.22–0.70)) compared to those in the highest education group. Respondents in the lowest income group adhered less often to the fruit (0.44 (95 % CI 0.22–0.91) and fish guideline (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.33–0.91) compared to those in the highest groups. Occupational prestige was not independently associated with adherence any the guidelines.

Conclusion

Selfreported adherence to the fruit, vegetables and fish guidelines among older adults can be improved and particularly in those with a low SES. Education and income have independent and unique contributions to dietary adherence. Future research should investigate potential pathways through which these specific SES indicators influence dietary adherence.

Key words

Fruit vegetables fish socio-economic status older adults dietary guidelines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mackenbach, J.P., et al., Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med, 2008. 358(23): p. 2468–2481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marmot, M., et al., WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet, 2012. 380(9846): p. 1011–1029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irala-Estevez, J.D., et al., A systematic review of socio-economic differences in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2000. 54(9): p. 706–714.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hulshof, K.F., et al., Socio-economic status, dietary intake and 10 y trends: the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2003. 57(1): p. 128–137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Touvier, M., et al., Variations in compliance with recommendations and types of meat/seafood/eggs according to sociodemographic and socioeconomic categories. Ann Nutr Metab, 2010. 56(1): p. 65–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson, A.L., et al., Dietary patterns and survival of older adults. J Am Diet Assoc, 2011. 111(1): p. 84–91.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng, J., et al., Fish consumption and CHD mortality: an updated meta-analysis of seventeen cohort studies. Public Health Nutr, 2012. 15(4): p. 725–737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, F.J., et al., Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables is related to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Hum Hypertens, 2007. 21(9): p. 717–728.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alinia, S., O. Hels, and I. Tetens, The potential association between fruit intake and body weight—a review. Obes Rev, 2009. 10(6): p. 639–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dauchet, L., et al., Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Nutr, 2006. 136(10): p. 2588–2593.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carter, P., et al., Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2010. 341: p. c4229.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soerjomataram, I., et al., Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables and future cancer incidence in selected European countries. Eur J Cancer, 2010. 46(14): p. 2563–2580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krieger, N., D.R. Williams, and N.E. Moss, Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health, 1997. 18: p. 341–378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galobardes, B., A. Morabia, and M.S. Bernstein, Diet and socioeconomic position: does the use of different indicators matter? Int J Epidemiol, 2001. 30(2): p. 334–340.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turrell, G., et al., Measuring socio-economic position in dietary research: is choice of socio-economic indicator important? Public Health Nutr, 2003. 6(2): p. 191–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waterlander, W.E., et al., Energy density, energy costs and income — how are they related? Public Health Nutr, 2010. 13(10): p. 1599–1608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drewnowski, A., Obesity and the food environment: dietary energy density and diet costs. Am J Prev Med, 2004. 27(3 Suppl): p. 154–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darmon, N., A. Briend, and A. Drewnowski, Energy-dense diets are associated with lower diet costs: a community study of French adults. Public Health Nutr, 2004. 7(1): p. 21–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drewnowski, A., et al., Low-energy-density diets are associated with higher diet quality and higher diet costs in French adults. J Am Diet Assoc, 2007. 107(6): p. 1028–1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLeod, E.R., K.J. Campbell, and K.D. Hesketh, Nutrition Knowledge: A Mediator between Socioeconomic Position and Diet Quality in Australian First-Time Mothers. J Am Diet Assoc, 2011. 111(5): p. 696–704.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malon, A., et al., Compliance with French nutrition and health program recommendations is strongly associated with socioeconomic characteristics in the general adult population. J Am Diet Assoc, 2010. 110(6): p. 848–856.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giskes, K., et al., A multilevel study of socio-economic inequalities in food choice behaviour and dietary intake among the Dutch population: the GLOBE study. Public Health Nutr, 2006. 9(1): p. 75–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreira, P.A. and P.D. Padrao, Educational and economic determinants of food intake in Portuguese adults: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 2004. 4: p. 58.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Rossum, C.T., et al., Education and nutrient intake in Dutch elderly people. The Rotterdam Study. Eur J Clin Nutr, 2000. 54(2): p. 159–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katsarou, A., et al., Socio-economic status, place of residence and dietary habits among the elderly: the Mediterranean islands study. Public Health Nutr, 2010. 13(10): p. 1614–1621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darmon, N. and A. Drewnowski, Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr, 2008. 87(5): p. 1107–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brownie, S., Why are elderly individuals at risk of nutritional deficiency? Int J Nurs Pract, 2006. 12(2): p. 110–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huisman, M., et al., Cohort profile: the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. Int J Epidemiol, 2011. 40(4): p. 868–876.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Planbureau, C., Modaal inkomen. http://www.cpb.nl/onderwerp/arbeidsmarkt (accessed June 2012). 2012.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koster, A., et al., Explanations of socioeconomic differences in changes in physical function in older adults: results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. BMC Public Health, 2006. 6: p. 244.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sixma, H. and W. Ultee, Een beroepsprestigeschaal voor Nederland in de jaren tachtig. Mens en Maatschappij 1983; 58:360–382. 1983.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Block, G., et al., A rapid food screener to assess fat and fruit and vegetable intake. American journal of preventive medicine, 2000. 18(4): p. 284–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim, D.J. and E.J. Holowaty, Brief, validated survey instruments for the measurement of fruit and vegetable intakes in adults: a review. Prev Med, 2003. 36(4): p. 440–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gezondheidsraad, Richtlijnen goede voeding 2006 (Dietary Guidelines 2006) — Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 2006; publicatie nr A06/08.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stel, V., et al., Comparison of the LASA Physical Activity Questionnaire with a 7-day diary and pedometer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Mar;57(3):252–258, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Permanent Onderzoek Leefsituatie (POLS) 2005–2008. In: Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning, Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid. Bilthoven: RIVM, 〈http://www.zorgatlas.nl〉 Zorgatlasßeïnvloedende factoren/Lichamelijke eigenschappen, 8 april 2011.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Radloff, L., The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. ApplPsych Meas, 1997. 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berkman, L., C. Berkman, and e.a. Kasl S, Depressive symptoms in relation to physical health and functioning in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol, 1986. 124, 372–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Penninx, B.W., et al., Changes in depression and physical decline in older adults: a longitudinal perspective. J Affect Disord, 2000. 61(1–2): p. 1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Knoops, K.T., et al., Mediterranean diet, lifestyle factors, and 10-year mortality in elderly European men and women: the HALE project. Jama, 2004. 292(12): p. 1433–1439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stanner, S. and A. Denny, Healthy ageing: the cardiovascular system. Healthy Ageing: The Role of Nutrition and Lifestyle. The Report of a British Nutrition Foundation Task Force, (S Stanner, R Thompson, JL Buttriss eds), pp. 159–190. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, 2009.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Davies, N., Promoting healthy ageing: the importance of lifestyle. Nurs Stand, 2011. 25(19): p. 43–49; quiz 50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rizzuto, D., et al., Lifestyle, social factors, and survival after age 75: population based study. BMJ, 2012. 345: p. e5568.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Turrell, G. and A.M. Kavanagh, Socio-economic pathways to diet: modelling the association between socio-economic position and food purchasing behaviour. Public Health Nutr, 2006. 9(3): p. 375–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Riediger, N.D. and M.H. Moghadasian, Patterns of fruit and vegetable consumption and the influence of sex, age and socio-demographic factors among Canadian elderly. J Am Coll Nutr, 2008. 27(2): p. 306–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Parmenter, K., J. Waller, and J. Wardle, Demographic variation in nutrition knowledge in England. Health Educ Res, 2000. 15(2): p. 163–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hendrie, G.A., J. Coveney, and D. Cox, Exploring nutrition knowledge and the demographic variation in knowledge levels in an Australian community sample. Public Health Nutr, 2008. 11(12): p. 1365–1371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gasquet, I., et al., Construction of a questionnaire measuring outpatients’ opinion of quality of hospital consultation departments. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2004. 2: p. 43.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wall, J., et al., Effectiveness of monetary incentives in modifying dietary behavior:a review of randomized, controlled trials. Nutr Rev, 2006. 64(12): p. 518–531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Blakely, T., et al., Do effects of price discounts and nutrition education on food purchases vary by ethnicity, income and education? Results from a randomised, controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2011. 65(10): p. 902–908.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Estaquio, C., et al., Socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable consumption among middle-aged French adults: adherence to the 5 A Day recommendation. J Am Diet Assoc, 2008. 108(12): p. 2021–2030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rossum, C.T.M.v., et al., Dutch Food Consumption Survey 2007–2010, ed. R.R. 350050006/2011. 2011, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer-Verlag France 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Coosje Dijkstra
    • 1
    • 5
  • J. E. Neter
    • 1
  • I. A. Brouwer
    • 1
  • M. Huisman
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • M. Visser
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SociologyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  5. 5.Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Department of Health SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations