Family structure and affluence in adolescent eating behaviour: a cross-national study in forty-one countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the family structure and affluence-related inequality in adolescent eating behaviour. DESIGN: Multivariate binary logistic regression and path analyses were employed to evaluate the impact of family structure and affluence on the consumption of fruits, vegetables, sweets and soft drinks among adolescents. SETTING: The cross-national Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study in 2013/2014 across forty-one countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adolescents aged 11-15 years old (n 192 755). RESULTS: Adolescents from a non-intact family were less likely to eat daily fruits (OR 0·82; 95 % CI 0·80, 0·84), vegetables (OR 0·91; 95 % CI 0·89, 0·93) and sweets (OR 0·96; 95 % CI 0·94, 0·99), but were more likely to consume soft drinks (OR 1·14; 95 % CI 1·11, 1·17), compared with their counterparts from an intact family. Adolescents who had the lowest family affluence scores (FAS) were less likely to eat daily fruits (OR 0·51; 95 % CI 0·49, 0·53), vegetables (OR 0·58; 95 % CI 0·56, 0·60) and sweets (OR 0·94; 95 % CI 0·90, 0·97), but were more likely to consume soft drinks (OR 1·25; 95 % CI 1·20, 1·30), compared with their counterparts who had the highest FAS. Across countries, a wide range of social inequality in daily consumption of foods was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents in Europe, Canada and Israel, there was a high level of family structure and family affluence inequalities in daily food consumption. Different aspects of family socio-economic circumstances should be considered at the national level designing effective interventions to promote healthy eating among adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".