Cargando…

A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults

The diet quality of rural Australians is under researched. Characterising disparities in diet quality between rural and urban populations may inform targeted interventions in at- risk groups. A cross-sectional study aimed to determine the relationship between diet quality, rurality and sociodemograp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pullen, Rebekah, Kent, Katherine, Sharman, Matthew J., Schumacher, Tracy L., Brown, Leanne J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8624345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34836385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13114130
_version_ 1784606151628816384
author Pullen, Rebekah
Kent, Katherine
Sharman, Matthew J.
Schumacher, Tracy L.
Brown, Leanne J.
author_facet Pullen, Rebekah
Kent, Katherine
Sharman, Matthew J.
Schumacher, Tracy L.
Brown, Leanne J.
author_sort Pullen, Rebekah
collection PubMed
description The diet quality of rural Australians is under researched. Characterising disparities in diet quality between rural and urban populations may inform targeted interventions in at- risk groups. A cross-sectional study aimed to determine the relationship between diet quality, rurality and sociodemographic characteristics in a sample of Australian adults. Participants were recruited at rural and regional events between 2017 and 2020, in New South Wales, Australia. Diet quality was measured using the Healthy Eating Quiz or Australian Eating Survey to generate an Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS). ARFS was compared by rurality and sociodemographic characteristics using multivariate regression. Participants (n = 247; 53% female) had a mean ± SD ARFS of 34.5 ± 9.0. There was no significant effect of rurality on ARFS (β-coefficient = −0.4; 95%CI −3.0, 2.3). Compared to participants aged 18–30 years, higher ARFS was evident for those aged 31–50 (β = 5.4; 95%CI 0.3, 10.4), 51–70 (β = 4.4; 95%CI 0.3, 8.5) and >71 years (β = 6.5; 95% CI 1.6–11.4). Compared to those living alone, participants living with a partner (β = 5.2; 95%CI 2.0, 8.4) and families with children (β = 5.6; 95%CI 1.4, 9.8) had significantly higher ARFS. ARFS was significantly lower with each additional self-reported chronic health condition (β = −1.4; 95%CI −2.3, −0.4). Our results indicate that diet quality as defined by the ARFS was classified as ‘getting there’ and that age, living arrangements and chronic health conditions, but not rurality, influenced diet quality in a sample of Australian adults.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8624345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86243452021-11-27 A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults Pullen, Rebekah Kent, Katherine Sharman, Matthew J. Schumacher, Tracy L. Brown, Leanne J. Nutrients Article The diet quality of rural Australians is under researched. Characterising disparities in diet quality between rural and urban populations may inform targeted interventions in at- risk groups. A cross-sectional study aimed to determine the relationship between diet quality, rurality and sociodemographic characteristics in a sample of Australian adults. Participants were recruited at rural and regional events between 2017 and 2020, in New South Wales, Australia. Diet quality was measured using the Healthy Eating Quiz or Australian Eating Survey to generate an Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS). ARFS was compared by rurality and sociodemographic characteristics using multivariate regression. Participants (n = 247; 53% female) had a mean ± SD ARFS of 34.5 ± 9.0. There was no significant effect of rurality on ARFS (β-coefficient = −0.4; 95%CI −3.0, 2.3). Compared to participants aged 18–30 years, higher ARFS was evident for those aged 31–50 (β = 5.4; 95%CI 0.3, 10.4), 51–70 (β = 4.4; 95%CI 0.3, 8.5) and >71 years (β = 6.5; 95% CI 1.6–11.4). Compared to those living alone, participants living with a partner (β = 5.2; 95%CI 2.0, 8.4) and families with children (β = 5.6; 95%CI 1.4, 9.8) had significantly higher ARFS. ARFS was significantly lower with each additional self-reported chronic health condition (β = −1.4; 95%CI −2.3, −0.4). Our results indicate that diet quality as defined by the ARFS was classified as ‘getting there’ and that age, living arrangements and chronic health conditions, but not rurality, influenced diet quality in a sample of Australian adults. MDPI 2021-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8624345/ /pubmed/34836385 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13114130 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pullen, Rebekah
Kent, Katherine
Sharman, Matthew J.
Schumacher, Tracy L.
Brown, Leanne J.
A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title_full A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title_fullStr A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title_short A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
title_sort comparison of diet quality in a sample of rural and urban australian adults
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8624345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34836385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13114130
work_keys_str_mv AT pullenrebekah acomparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT kentkatherine acomparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT sharmanmatthewj acomparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT schumachertracyl acomparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT brownleannej acomparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT pullenrebekah comparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT kentkatherine comparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT sharmanmatthewj comparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT schumachertracyl comparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults
AT brownleannej comparisonofdietqualityinasampleofruralandurbanaustralianadults