↓ Skip to main content

Are dietary inequalities among Australian adults changing? a nationally representative analysis of dietary change according to socioeconomic position between 1995 and 2011–13

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are dietary inequalities among Australian adults changing? a nationally representative analysis of dietary change according to socioeconomic position between 1995 and 2011–13
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0666-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana Lee Olstad, Rebecca M. Leech, Katherine M. Livingstone, Kylie Ball, Beth Thomas, Jane Potter, Xenia Cleanthous, Rachael Reynolds, Sarah A. McNaughton

Abstract

Increasing inequalities in rates of obesity and chronic disease may be partly fuelled by increasing dietary inequalities, however very few nationally representative analyses of socioeconomic trends in dietary inequalities exist. The release of the 2011-13 Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey data allows investigation of change in dietary intake according to socioeconomic position (SEP) in Australia using a large, nationally representative sample, compared to the previous national survey in 1995. This study examined change in dietary intakes of energy, macronutrients, fiber, fruits and vegetables among Australian adults between 1995 and 2011-13, according to SEP. Cross-sectional data were obtained from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey, and the 2011-13 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. Dietary intake data were collected via a 24-h dietary recall (n = 17,484 adults) and a dietary questionnaire (n = 15,287 adults). SEP was assessed according to educational level, equivalized household income, and area-level disadvantage. Survey-weighted linear and logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex/gender and smoking status, examined change in dietary intakes over time. Dietary intakes remained poor across the SEP spectrum in both surveys, as evidenced by high consumption of saturated fat and total sugars, and low fiber, fruit and vegetable intakes. There was consistent evidence (i.e. according to ≥2 SEP measures) of more favorable changes in dietary intakes of carbohydrate, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat in higher, relative to lower SEP groups, particularly in women. Intakes of energy, total fat, saturated fat and fruit differed over time according to a single SEP measure (i.e. educational level, household income, or area-level disadvantage). There were no changes in intake of total sugars, protein, fiber or vegetables according to any SEP measures. There were few changes in dietary intakes of energy, most macronutrients, fiber, fruits and vegetables in Australian adults between 1995 and 2011-13 according to SEP. For carbohydrate, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat, more favorable changes in intakes occurred in higher SEP groups. Despite the persistence of suboptimal dietary intakes, limited evidence of widening dietary inequalities is positive from a public health perspective. Clinical trials registration: ACTRN12617001045303 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 21 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 24 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 December 2018.
All research outputs
#5,637,831
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,364
of 1,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,755
of 330,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#20
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 330,304 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.