Associations of the local food environment with diet quality - A comparison of assessments based on surveys and geographic information systems
Associations of the local food environment with diet quality - A comparison of assessments based on surveys and geographic information systems
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwm394
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-15
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Jacobs, David R., Jr.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moore, Latetia V.;Roux, Ana V. Diez;Jacobs, David R., Jr.
人们越来越有兴趣了解食物环境如何影响饮食，但描述食物环境具有挑战性。作者调查了全球饮食指标（根据经验得出的“脂肪和加工肉类”（FPM）饮食模式和替代健康饮食指数（AHEI））与当地食品环境的三个补充指标之间的关系：1）超市密度，2）参与者报告的评估，3）独立知情人的汇总调查反应。数据来自动脉粥样硬化多种族研究的基线检查（2000-2002 年），这是一项针对美国 45-84 岁成年人的研究。健康饮食的定义是得分分别位于 AHEI 或 FPM 的前五分位数或后五分位数。使用二项式回归根据每个环境测量值对拥有健康饮食的概率进行建模。在对年龄、性别、种族/族裔和社会经济指标进行调整后，与拥有最多商店的参与者相比，家附近没有超市的参与者拥有健康饮食的可能性要低 25-46%：最低商店密度类别与最高商店密度类别的健康饮食相对概率为 0.75（95% 置信区间：0.59、0.95），AHEI 为 0.54（95% 置信区间：0.42）。 0.70）对于 FPM。同样，生活在食物环境最差地区的参与者（根据参与者或知情人），与生活在食物环境排名最好的地区的参与者相比，健康饮食的可能性要低 22-35%。改善饮食的努力可能会受益于个人和环境方法的结合。
There is growing interest in understanding how food environments affect diet, but characterizing the food environment is challenging. The authors investigated the relation between global diet measures (an empirically derived "fats and processed meats" (FPM) dietary pattern and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)) and three complementary measures of the local food environment: 1) supermarket density, 2) participant-reported assessments, and 3) aggregated survey responses of independent informants. Data were derived from the baseline examination (2000-2002) of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a US study of adults aged 45-84 years. A healthy diet was defined as scoring in the top or bottom quintile of AHEI or FPM, respectively. The probability of having a healthy diet was modeled by each environment measure using binomial regression. Participants with no supermarkets near their homes were 25-46% less likely to have a healthy diet than those with the most stores, after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic indicators: The relative probability of a healthy diet for the lowest store density category versus the highest was 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.95) for the AHEI and 0.54 (95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.70) for FPM. Similarly, participants living in areas with the worst-ranked food environments (by participants or informants) were 22-35% less likely to have a healthy diet than those in the best-ranked food environments. Efforts to improve diet may benefit from combining individual and environmental approaches.