Food choice motives including sustainability during purchasing are associated with a healthy dietary pattern in French adults

Allès, B.; Péneau, S.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Baudry, J.; Hercberg, S.; Méjean, C.

doi:10.1186/s12937-017-0279-9

Table 4 Associations between dietary patterns and food choice motives dimension scores (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)

From: Food choice motives including sustainability during purchasing are associated with a healthy dietary pattern in French adults

	Healthy^a				Traditional^a
	Women		Men		Women		Men
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
ethics and environment
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.047	[0.018; 0.076]	−0.002	[−0.061; 0.058]	0.009	[−0.015: 0.034]	−0.007	[−0.065;0.050]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.033	[0.001; 0.065]	−0.007	[−0.077; 0.064]	0.025	[−0.002: 0.052]	−0.037	[−0.106;0.030]
traditional and local production
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.080	[0.051; 0.109]	0.013	[−0.046; 0.073]	0.008	[−0.016; 0.033]	0.007	[−0.050; 0.066]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.081	[0.049; 0.112]	−0.019	[−0.089; 0.052]	−0.008	[−0.035; 0.018]	−0.009	[−0.078; 0.059]
taste
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.016	[−0.010; 0.043]	0.041	[−0.018; 0.100]	−0.001	[−0.024; 0.020]	0.038	[−0.018; 0.096]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.022	[−0.006; 0.050]	0.011	[−0.060; 0.083]	−0.011	[−0.035; 0.012]	−0.002	[−0.072; 0.067]
price
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	−0.015	[−0.043; 0.013]	−0.025	[−0.086; 0.036]	−0.001	[−0.025; 0.020]	0.010	[−0.048; 0.069]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	−0.040	[−0.067; −0.013]	−0.074	[−0.141; −0.007]	0.004	[−0.019; 0.027]	−0.014	[−0.079; 0.051]
health
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.042	[0.014; 0.071]	0.003	[−0.059; 0.065]	0.027	[0.002; 0.052]	0.011	[−0.049; 0.072]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.069	[0.040; 0.099]	0.067	[0.001; 0.135]	0.003	[−0.022; 0.029]	−0.059	[−0.125; 0.006]
absence of contaminants
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.046	[0.017; 0.074]	0.017	[−0.044; 0.079]	−0.001	[−0.026; 0.023]	0.084	[0.024; 0.144]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.038	[0.008; 0.069]	0.028	[−0.040; 0.095]	−0.019	[−0.045; 0.007]	−0.013	[−0.079; 0.052]
environmental limitations (above median vs. under median)	0.175	[0.153; 0.198]	0.202	[0.149; 0.255]	−0.087	[−0.107; −0.068]	−0.130	[−0.181; −0.078]
innovation (above median vs. under median)	−0.010	[−0.033;0.013]	0.063	[0.010; 0.116]	−0.011	[−0.031; 0.008]	−0.061	[−0.113; −0.009]

^a: parameters estimated with multivariable linear regression models, 8 food choice dimension scores adjusted for age, education and total energy intake; in bold: statiscally significant
β: linear regression coefficient estimate; 95% CI = Confidence interval

Back to article page

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Nutrition Journal

Contact us