4.3 Article

Is the objective food environment associated with perceptions of the food environment?

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 291-298

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980011001947

Keywords

Food environment; Environment perceptions; Nutrition; Women

Funding

  1. National Heart Foundation of Australia [GIA G 02M 0658]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0665242]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council [425845, 479513]
  4. VicHealth Research Fellowship
  5. Australian Research Council [DP0665242] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The present study examined whether objective measures of the food environment are associated with perceptions of the food environment and whether this relationship varies by socio-economic disadvantage. Design: The study is a cross-sectional analysis of self-report surveys and objective environment data. Women reported their perceptions on the nutrition environment. Participants' homes and food stores were geocoded to measure the objective community nutrition environment. Data on the average price and variety of fruit and vegetables were used to measure the objective consumer nutrition environment. Setting: The study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, in 2003-2004. Subjects: Data presented are from a sample of 1393 women aged 18-65 years. Results: Overall the match between the perceived and objective environment was poor, underscoring the limitations in using perceptions of the environment as a proxy for the objective environment. Socio-economic disadvantage had limited impact on the relationship between perceived and objective nutrition environment. Conclusions: Further research is needed to understand the determinants of perceptions of the nutrition environment to enhance our understanding of the role of perceptions in nutrition choices and drivers of socio-economic inequalities in nutrition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available