Trends in Socioeconomic Inequities in Diet Quality between 2004 and 2015 among a Nationally Representative Sample of Children in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary inequities in childhood may shape dietary and health inequities across the life course. Quantifying the magnitude and direction of trends in absolute and relative gaps and gradients in diet quality according to multiple indicators of socioeconomic position (SEP) can inform strategies to narrow these inequities. OBJECTIVES: We examined trends in absolute and relative gaps and gradients in diet quality between 2004 and 2015 according to 3 indicators of SEP among a nationally representative sample of children in Canada. METHODS: Data from children (aged 2-17 y; n = 18,670) who participated in the cross-sectional Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition in 2004 or 2015 were analyzed. SEP was based on total household income, household educational attainment, and neighborhood deprivation. Dietary intake data from 1 interviewer-administered 24-h dietary recall were used to derive a Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) score for each participant as a measure of diet quality. Inequities in diet quality were quantified using 4 indices: absolute and relative gaps (between highest and lowest SEP) and absolute (Slope Index of Inequality) and relative gradients (Relative Index of Inequality). Overall and age-stratified multivariable linear regression and generalized linear models examined trends in HEI-2015 scores between 2004 and 2015. RESULTS: Although mean HEI-2015 total scores improved from 52.3 to 57.3 (maximum 100 points; P < 0.001), absolute and relative gaps and gradients in diet quality remained mostly stable for all 3 SEP indicators. However, among children aged 6-11 y, absolute and relative gradients in diet quality according to household educational attainment and neighborhood deprivation widened. CONCLUSIONS: The diet quality of children in Canada was poor and inequitably patterned in 2004 and 2015. Although mean diet quality improved between 2004 and 2015, absolute and relative gaps and gradients in diet quality persisted, with some evidence of widening absolute and relative gradients among 6- to 11-y-olds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".