A household food inventory for North American Chinese
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a short set of questions about foods in the household can provide information about the fat-related dietary behaviour of individual household members in less-acculturated Chinese populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: The study population included 244 adult females of Chinese ethnicity in Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, BC, Canada. SETTING: Bilingual interviewers collected information on the presence of 14 high-fat foods and seven reduced-fat foods in the household. Respondents were also asked about the consumption of foods and behaviour reflective of adoption of Western dietary practices, fat-related dietary behaviour, changes in consumption of high-fat foods since immigration, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Although this was a less-acculturated sample, many households had Western foods such as butter (58%), lunchmeats (36%), snack chips (43%), and 1% or skim milk (48%). Households with respondents who were younger, married, employed outside the home, and lived with young children had significantly more high-fat foods, while high education and longer percentage of life in North America were significantly associated with having more reduced-fat foods (P , or = 0.05). Participants living in households with more high-fat foods had higher-fat dietary behaviour than those with fewer high-fat foods (fat-related dietary behaviour score, 1.54 versus 1.28; P < 0.001). Women in households with more reduced-fat foods had a significantly decreased consumption of high-fat foods since immigration compared with those in households with fewer reduced-fat foods (P < 0.001). Western dietary acculturation was higher among women in households both with more high-fat foods and more reduced-fat food counterparts (P < or = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our inventory of household foods was strongly associated with current dietary behaviour, changes in food consumption, and westernization of dietary patterns. This simple, practical measure may be a useful alternative dietary assessment tool in less-acculturated Chinese populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».