Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations of social relationships with variety of fruit or vegetable intakes in older adults in the EPIC-Norfolk study

From: Gender and the double burden of economic and social disadvantages on healthy eating: cross-sectional study of older adults in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort

 

Fruit Variety

Vegetable Variety

 

Women

Men

Women

Men

 

Model 1

Model 2

Model 1

Model 2

Model 1

Model 2

Model 1

Model 2

Marital Status

Married

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

Non-married

−0.08a

−0.09a

−0.62a

−0.37a

−0.76a

−0.75a

−2.07a

−1.79a

(-0.25, 0.10)

(-0.28, 0.10)

(-0.90, -0.34)

(-0.67, -0.07)

(-1.06, -0.46)

(-1.06, -0.44)

(-2.55, -1.60)

(-2.29, -1.30)

   

***

*

***

***

***

***

Living arrangement

Co-living

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

Lone-living

−0.16

−0.16

−0.35

−0.24

−0.57a

−0.60a

−1.51a

−1.32a

(-0.32, -0.00)

(-0.33, 0.00)

(-0.58, -0.12)

(-0.47, -0.00)

(-0.84, -0.31)

(-0.87, -0.33)

(-1.89, -1.12)

(-1.71, -0.94)

 

*

 

**

*

***

***

***

***

Friend contact

Frequent

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

reference

Infrequent

−0.54

−0.42

−0.52

−0.49

−0.81

−0.53

−0.83

−0.68

(-0.73, -0.34)

(-0.61, -0.22)

(-0.70, -0.34)

(-0.67, -0.30)

(-1.13, -0.49)

(-0.85, -0.20)

(-1.14, -0.53)

(-0.98, -0.38)

 

***

***

***

***

***

**

***

***

  1. Gender-specific beta coefficients (CI95) obtained by linear regression models using an interaction term and adjusting for age and energy intake (Model 1), and then for economic resources (social class, education, home-ownership, money for needs, frequency of insufficient money for food/clothing, paying bills) (Model 2). Numbers were: marital status (Model 1: 6,257; Model 2: 5,628); living arrangement (Model 1: 8,816; Model 2: 8,414); and frequency of friend contact (Model 1: 8,442; Model 2: 8,086). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; aSignificant gender difference (p-interaction<0.10)