4.6 Article

Social Network Concordance in Food Choice Among Spouses, Friends, and Siblings

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 2170-2177

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300282

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute on Aging [F31AG033503, P-01AG031093]
  3. National Science Foundation [0824568]
  4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  5. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-25195]
  6. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  7. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0824568] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We investigated whether eating behaviors were concordant among diverse sets of social ties. Methods. We analyzed the socioeconomic and demographic distribution of eating among 3418 members of the Framingham Heart Study observed from 1991 to 2001. We used a data-classification procedure to simplify choices into 7 nonoverlapping patterns that we matched with information on social network ties. We used correlation analysis to examine eating associations among 4 types of peers (spouses, friends, brothers, and sisters). Longitudinal multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate evidence for peer influences on eating. Results. Of all peer types, spouses showed the strongest concordances in eating patterns over time after adjustment for social contextual factors. Across all peers, the eating pattern most likely to be shared by socially connected individuals was alcohol and snacks. Models estimating one's current eating pattern on the basis of a peer's prior eating provided supportive evidence of a social influence process. Conclusions. Certain eating patterns appeared to be socially transmissible across different kinds of relationships. These findings represent an important step in specifying the relevant social environment in the study of health behaviors to include eating. (Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2170-2177. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300282)

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

4.6
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