Does exposure to the food environment differ by socioeconomic position? Comparing area-based and person-centred metrics in the Fenland Study, UK.
International journal of health geographics
MetadataShow full item record
Maguire, E. R., Burgoine, T., Penney, T., Forouhi, N., & Monsivais, P. (2017). Does exposure to the food environment differ by socioeconomic position? Comparing area-based and person-centred metrics in the Fenland Study, UK.. International journal of health geographics, 16 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0106-8
BACKGROUND: Retail food environments (foodscapes) are a recognised determinant of eating behaviours and may contribute to inequalities in diet. However, findings from studies measuring socioeconomic inequality in the foodscape have been mixed, which may be due to methodological differences. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare exposure to the foodscape by socioeconomic position using different measures, to test whether the presence, direction or amplitude of differences was sensitive to the choice of foodscape metric or socioeconomic indicator. METHODS: A sample of 10,429 adults aged 30–64 years with valid home address data were obtained from the Fenland Study, UK. Of this sample, 7270 participants also had valid work location data. The sample was linked to data on food outlets obtained from local government records. Foodscape metrics included count, density and proximity of takeaway outlets and supermarkets, and the percentage of takeaway outlets relative to all food outlets. Exposure metrics were area-based (lower super output areas), and person-centred (proximity to nearest; Euclidean and Network buffers at 800 m, 1 km, and 1 mile). Person-centred buffers were constructed using home and work locations. Socioeconomic status was measured at the area-level (2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation) and the individual-level (highest educational attainment; equivalised household income). Participants were classified into socioeconomic groups and average exposures estimated. Results were analysed using the statistical and percent differences between the highest and lowest socioeconomic groups. RESULTS: In area-based measures, the most deprived areas contained higher takeaway outlet densities (p < 0.001). However, in person-centred metrics lower socioeconomic status was associated with lower exposure to takeaway outlets and supermarkets (all home-based exposures p < 0.001) and socioeconomic differences were greatest at the smallest buffer sizes. Socioeconomic differences in exposure was similar for home and combined home and work measures. Measuring takeaway exposure as a percentage of all outlets reversed the socioeconomic differences; the lowest socioeconomic groups had a higher percentage of takeaway outlets compared to the middle and highest groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions We compared approaches to measuring socioeconomic variation in the foodscape and found that the association was sensitive to the metric used. In particular, the direction of association varied between area- and person-centred measures and between absolute and relative outlet measures. Studies need to consider the most appropriate measure for the research question, and may need to consider multiple measures as a single measure may be context dependent.
Humans, Diet, Population Surveillance, Cohort Studies, Cross-Sectional Studies, Feeding Behavior, Environment, Social Class, Restaurants, Food Supply, Adult, Middle Aged, Female, Male, Geographic Mapping, United Kingdom
This work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research [ES/G007462/1], and the Wellcome Trust [087636/Z/08/Z], under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. TLP’s Ph.D. studentship is generously supported by the Cambridge International Scholarship, a scheme funded by the Cambridge Commonwealth, European & International Trust. Core Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit for NGF (MC_UU_12015/5) is also acknowledged. The Fenland Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.
Wellcome Trust (087636/Z/08/Z)
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0106-8
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/267932
Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International
Recommended or similar items
The following licence files are associated with this item: