Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between frequency of meal preparation and socioeconomic characteristicsa

From: Social disparities in food preparation behaviours: a DEDIPAC study

 

Women n = 48,401

Men n = 13,972

Non-cooks vs. regular cooks

Occasional cooks vs. regular cooks

P-value#

Non-cooks vs. regular cooks

Occasional cooks vs. regular cooks

P-value#

OR

CI 95%

OR

CI 95%

OR

CI 95%

OR

CI 95%

Education

    

0.001

    

0.0003

 Primary

3.36

1.69;6.69

0.90

0.69;1.17

 

1.83

1.07;3.16

1.21

0.79;1.84

 

 Secondary

1.65

1.07;2.52

1.06

0.93;1.20

 

1.29

1.03;1.84

0.91

0.73;1.13

 

 Under graduate

0.96

0.64;1.44

0.92

0.83;1.01

 

1.13

0.83;1.54

0.95

0.77;1.16

 

 Post graduate

1.00

 

1.00

  

1.00

 

1.00

  

Occupation

    

0.0005

    

0.15

 Self-employed

0.08

0.02;0.30

0.79

0.49;1.27

 

0.78

0.45;1.35

0.91

0.63;1.28

 

 Never employed

0.30

0.11;0.77

0.94

0.68;1.30

 

1.55

0.42;5.07

1.39

0.70;2.75

 

 Manual worker, office worker

0.52

0.28;0.97

0.88

0.74;1.05

 

0.80

0.56;1.13

0.88

0.67;1.15

 

 Intermediate profession

0.45

0.21;0.98

0.97

0.83;1.13

 

0.79

0.66;1.02

0.98

0.88;1.37

 

 Managerial staff

1.00

 

1.00

  

1.00

 

1.00

  

Monthly household income per consumption unit

    

0.0006

    

0.01

 Unwilling to answer

1.12

0.61;2.05

0.87

0.55;0.99

 

1.51

0.91;2.53

0.81

0.53;1.23

 

  < 1200 euros

2.01

0.98;3.65

0.77

0.53;0.97

 

1.32

0.84;2.07

0.90

0.65;1.27

 

 1200–1800 euros

1.14

0.68;1.90

0.87

0.75;1.02

 

1.43

1.09;1.88

0.94

0.75;1.03

 

 1801–2700 euros

0.90

0.49;1.64

0.88

0.71;1.09

 

0.72

0.56;1.09

0.78

0.56;1.09

 

  > 2700 euros

1.00

 

1.00

  

1.00

 

1.00

  
  1. aMultivariable logistic regression model in each sex, including the three socio-economic indicators (education, income and occupation) simultaneously, adjusted for age, household composition and whether or not the main cook in the household
  2. #P-value represented the overall significance of each variable included in the model (Type 3 analysis of effects)
  3. A P-value <0.001 was considered as statistically significant