Socioeconomic inequities in diet quality among a nationally representative sample of adults living in Canada: an analysis of trends between 2004 and 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequities in diet quality are stable or widening in the United States; however, these trends have not been well characterized in other nations. Moreover, purpose-developed indices of inequities that can provide a more comprehensive and precise perspective of trends in absolute and relative dietary gaps and gradients using multiple indicators of socioeconomic position (SEP) have not yet been used, and can inform strategies to narrow dietary inequities. OBJECTIVES: We quantified nationally representative trends in absolute and relative gaps and gradients in diet quality between 2004 and 2015 according to 3 indicators of SEP among adults in Canada. METHODS: Adults (≥18 y old) who participated in the nationally representative, cross-sectional Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition in 2004 (n = 20,880) or 2015 (n = 13,970) were included. SEP was classified using household income (quintiles), education (5 categories), and neighborhood deprivation (quintiles). Dietary intake data from 24-h recalls were used to derive Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) scores. Dietary inequities were quantified using absolute and relative gaps (between the most and least disadvantaged) and absolute [Slope Index of Inequality (SII)] and relative gradients (Relative Index of Inequality). Overall and sex-stratified multivariable linear regression and generalized linear models examined trends in HEI-2015 scores between 2004 and 2015. RESULTS: Mean HEI-2015 scores improved from 55.3 to 59.0 (maximum: 100); however, these trends were not consistently equitable. Whereas inequities in HEI-2015 scores were stable in the total population and in females, the absolute gap [from 1.60 (95% CI: 0.09, 3.10) to 4.27 (95% CI: 2.20, 6.34)] and gradient [from SII = 2.09 (95% CI: 0.45, 3.73) to SII = 4.84 (95% CI: 2.49, 7.20)] in HEI-2015 scores for household income, and the absolute gradient for education [from SII = 8.06 (95% CI: 6.41, 9.71) to SII = 10.52 (95% CI: 8.73, 12.31)], increased in males. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute and relative gaps and gradients in overall diet quality remained stable or widened between 2004 and 2015 among adults in Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".