Bernsdorf Kamille Almer, Bøggild Henrik, Aadahl Mette, Toft Ulla
Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Public Health and Epidemiology, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Dec 18;24(1):3445. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20976-x.
The food environment plays a crucial role in shaping our dietary choices and overall health. Spatial measures provide distinct perspectives on the physical food environment and its impact on diet. While proportion measures are theoretically considered to provide a more accurate representation of the overall physical food environment than density measures, it is important to recognize that the association between food environments and diet can vary depending on the context. Therefore, relying solely on one measure may not be appropriate.
We systematically assessed the density and proportion of multiple food outlet types (fast-food outlets, convenience stores, supermarkets, and restaurants) around individuals homes using a large cross-sectional Danish study (N = 71,840). Densities were modeled in separate multilevel linear regression models, incorporating random intercepts from linear splines for each of the four food outlet types. Proportions were modeled without splines. Through the association with a dietary quality score (DQS), we examined the impact of quantifying the foodscape from density versus proportion measures. Associations were compared using parameter estimates, p-values, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values, and Akaike weights.
AIC values and Akaike weights were in favor of models including density measures. Across all outlet types, density measures were consistently negatively associated with the DQS until reaching densities of 3-5 (count/km2), at which point the direction of association became positive, indicating a shift towards a healthier DQS. After correcting for multiple comparisons, the most significant effect was observed for the sole significant proportion measure. A 10% increase in the proportion of fast-food outlets among "eating out options" was associated with a 7% decrease in the DQS, towards poorer dietary quality.
The associations highlight that choosing food outlet density versus proportions to quantify the foodscape impact findings of substantial importance when considering the significance level and direction of association. Findings suggests a threshold effect when using density measures indicating abundance of many food outlets, at which the association with dietary quality alters significantly towards healthier diet quality.
食物环境在塑造我们的饮食选择和整体健康方面起着至关重要的作用。空间测量方法为物理食物环境及其对饮食的影响提供了独特的视角。虽然理论上比例测量方法被认为比密度测量方法能更准确地反映整体物理食物环境,但重要的是要认识到食物环境与饮食之间的关联可能因背景而异。因此,仅依赖一种测量方法可能不合适。
我们使用一项大型丹麦横断面研究(N = 71,840),系统地评估了个体住所周围多种类型食品销售点(快餐店、便利店、超市和餐馆)的密度和比例。密度在单独的多层线性回归模型中进行建模,为四种食品销售点类型中的每一种纳入来自线性样条的随机截距。比例建模时不使用样条。通过与饮食质量评分(DQS)的关联,我们研究了从密度测量与比例测量量化食物景观的影响。使用参数估计值、p值、赤池信息准则(AIC)值和赤池权重比较关联。
AIC值和赤池权重支持包含密度测量的模型。在所有销售点类型中,密度测量与DQS一直呈负相关,直到密度达到3 - 5(个/平方公里),此时关联方向变为正,表明向更健康的DQS转变。在进行多重比较校正后,观察到唯一显著的比例测量有最显著的效应。“外出就餐选择”中快餐店比例增加10%与DQS降低7%相关,即饮食质量变差。
这些关联突出表明,在考虑关联的显著性水平和方向时,选择食品销售点密度还是比例来量化食物景观对重要结果有重大影响。研究结果表明,使用密度测量时存在阈值效应,即许多食品销售点数量丰富时,与饮食质量的关联会显著转向更健康的饮食质量。