4.3 Article

Diet quality in young adults and its association with food-related behaviours

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 1767-1775

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980013001924

关键词

Diet quality; Young adults; Cooking; Takeaway

资金

  1. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the diet quality of a group of young adults and explore its associations with two food-related behaviours (involvement in meal preparation and consumption of commercially prepared meals). Design: Cross-sectional study of young adults. Sample characteristics, food-related behaviours and dietary intake were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire including an FFQ. Diet quality was measured using the fifteen-item Dietary Guideline Index (DGI) designed to assess adherence to Australian dietary guidelines. One-way ANOVA, t tests and multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore the relationships between DGI scores, sample characteristics and food-related behaviours. Setting: University students enrolled in an undergraduate nutrition class, Melbourne, Australia. Subjects: Students (n 309) aged 18-36 years. Results: The DGI score was normally distributed, with a mean score of 93.4 (SD 17.1) points (range 51.9-127.4 points), out of a possible score of 150 points. In multivariate analyses adjusted for age, sex, nationality, BMI and maternal education, cooking meals for oneself was positively associated with DGI score (beta = 0.15; 95% CI 1.15, 10.03; P=0.01); frequency of takeaway and frequency of convenience meal consumption were inversely associated with DGI score (beta = -0.21; 95% CI -9.96, -2.32; P=0.002 and beta = -0.16; 95% CI -7.40, -0.97; P<0.01, respectively). Conclusions: Cooking meals for oneself was linked to higher diet quality among young adults, while consumption of commercially prepared meals was associated with poorer diet quality. Maintaining education programmes that promote cooking skills within young adults has the potential to improve DGI scores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据