Abstract
Background: Dietary behaviours of adolescence are concerning, and this may impact long-term well-being. Aim: This study examined the socio-ecological determinants of dietary behaviours in a national prospective cohort study of English adolescents. Methods: Latent class analysis was used to identify the typologies of eight dietary behaviours: fruit, vegetable, breakfast, sugar-sweetened beverages, artificial-sweetened beverages, fast-food, bread, and milk from 7402 adolescents aged 13–15 years (mean 13.8 ± 0.45 years) (50.3% female and 71.3% white ethnicity) participating in the U.K. Millennium Cohort Study (sixth survey). Multinomial logistic regression and path analysis predicted associations between personal characteristics, individual, influential others, social environment and physical environment determinants and three distinct diet typologies: (1) healthy, (2) less-healthy and (3) mixed, (reference category = mixed). Results: Within Path analysis, the magnitudes of coefficients were small to moderate suggesting a relatively weak relationship between the variables. Model 1 reported adolescents within the less-healthy compared to mixed typology had lower levels of physical activity (β = 0.074, 95% CI = −0.115, −0.033), and have siblings (β = 0.246, 95% CI = 0.105, 0.387). Model 2 reported adolescents within the healthy compared to mixed typology had lower screen time (β = 0.104, 95% CI = 0.067, 0.141), and lower social media usage (β = 0.035, 95% CI = 0.024, 0.046). Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of considering multiple dietary determinants. These findings are likely to be useful in supporting the development of multi-faceted interventions. They emphasise the need to move away from investigating silo behaviours on individual diet components and a step towards more systems thinking to improve adolescent eating behaviours.
Keywords: Latent class analysis, dietary behaviour, food, adolescents, millennium cohort study
Introduction
Poor dietary behaviours that led to non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, were responsible for 11 million (22%) global adult deaths in 2017 (Afshin et al., 2019). To prevent their onset, changes in dietary practices are recommended. This is important during adolescence, a developmental period defined by the high nutritional demands required to fuel changes in physical, cognitive, and social-emotional characteristics (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Evidence suggests that adolescents continue to make less than optimum dietary choices (Public Health England, 2020), and given the long-term impact of food choices on adult health (Vos et al., 2017), improving adolescent dietary behaviours is a national public health priority.
Despite major investments in improving the dietary behaviours of English adolescents, data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, suggest current intervention effectiveness is limited. For example, for the period 2016 to 2019, free sugar and saturated fat intakes exceeded the Government recommendations of providing no more than 5% (Public Health England, 2015) and 10% (Public Health England, 2019) of total energy intake by 7.3% and 2.6%, respectively (Public Health England, 2020). Rutter et al. (2017) suggest that the evidence underpinning tackling public health behaviours, including diet, has been grounded in linear models of cause and effect. To have a positive outcome, they should instead consider complex systems that conceptualise health behaviours as outcomes of a multitude of interdependent elements within a connected whole (Rutter et al., 2017). If we are to be successful in identifying, implementing, and evaluating effective changes in adolescents’ diets, lessons can be learned from the extensive work undertaken in related disciplines for example obesity (Bagnall et al., 2019). Reshaping dietary behaviour research, policy, and practice to recognise the complexity of the systems involved in behaviours may potentially improve adolescent diets and subsequent health.
Sleddens et al. (2015) identified environmental (mainly social-cultural) and social-cognitive determinants as key determinants of youth dietary behaviours, however, noted a paradigm shift from a social-cognitive approach towards a social-ecological method in the assessment of behavioural influences. The socio-ecological model (SEM) recognises the complexity of multiple behaviours on an outcome (Stokols, 1996) and emphasises the interaction between, and interdependence of, factors within and across multiple levels of behaviour. The model recognises the complex interplay between different layers, including personal characteristics, the individual, influential others (e.g., parents or friends), social environment, and physical environment. This concept moves away from targeting individual behaviours and considers multiple elements across the many systems that influence dietary intake to tackle health disparities (Bagnall et al., 2019; Rutter et al., 2017).
While insightful analyses have previously considered the layers of the SEM in isolation, most of the work to date has failed to consider the interplay of these layers. Given the complexity of influences on adolescent dietary behaviours, and the importance of targeting health, it is imperative that we consider the contribution of multiple predictors. In addition to recognising that behaviour is influenced by multiple factors, it is also important to recognise that food and nutrients are not consumed independently, and the use of dietary patterns to describe dietary behaviours has become increasingly popular in nutritional epidemiology (Dai et al., 2020). The SEM will provide a framework to investigate multiple influences on a variety of adolescent dietary behaviours. Investigating if these layers predict dietary typologies will assist in the development of effective and sustainable multi-faceted interventions for the promotion of healthy eating, which aim to have a positive effect on long-term public health.
Methods
Study procedure and participants
Cross-sectional data were analysed from wave 6 (2014) of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) (University of London, 2007). The MCS, is an observational cohort study, tracking U.K. children born in 2000 (n = 19,519). Full details of the study are published elsewhere (Connelly and Platt, 2014). Ethical approval for the MCS6 surveys was obtained by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) and from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Research Ethics Committee (REC) London – Central (REC ref: 13/LO/1786).
Measures
Dietary behaviours
Eight dietary behaviours; fruit, vegetable, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), artificially sweetened beverages (ASB), fast-food (FF), breakfast, bread and milk (supplement 1) were assessed via questionnaires administered to adolescents by trained interviewers in their homes. English adolescents who had complete data for the eight dietary behaviours assessed were included in the analysis (n = 179, 2.36% excluded). The national sample size was n = 7402.
Socio-ecological variables
Interviews with both adolescent and their caregiver were used to assess socio-ecological variables, including (1) personal characteristics (2) individual characteristics (3) influential others (4) social environment and (5) perceived physical environment. Supplement 1 outlines the full details of the questions.
Personal Characteristics
Three personal characteristics were included in the analysis; (1) sex, (2) ethnicity, (71.3% of the sample identified as being white, therefore, to ensure the stability of estimates within each group, all other ethnic minorities were cumulated into a non-white group (Beydoun and Wang, 2011; Griffiths et al., 2010)), (3) BMI classification (height, measured using a Leicester stadiometer and weight, measured using Tanita BF-522 W scales).
Individual
Adolescents were interviewed and reported on: (1) post-school intention, (2) perceived weight status, (3) screen time and social media usage, (4) ownership of a computer, (5) physical activity levels, (6) time at night spent asleep, (7) smoking status, (8) perceived well-being, (9) perceived health, (10) self-esteem (measured using questions taken from Rosenburg (1965)) and (11) cognitive ability (measured as a score out of 20, using a word activity from subsets used by the 1970 British Cohort Study and originally from standardised vocabulary tests devised by the Applied Psychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh in 1976 (Closs, 1976)).
Influential others
Adolescents were asked about the role of influential others in their lives and reported (1) the number of parents/carers in the household, which collapsed to one or two or more, and encompassed adoptive, foster, step, natural, and grandparents, (2) parental control, (3) the number of siblings in the house, (4) parental health, (5) frequency of consuming meals as a family, (6) time spent with close friends, and (7) hours spent on social media.
Social environment
In the caregiver interview, parents were asked four questions about their social environment: (1) parental education, (2) parental cognitive ability (measured using a word activity), (3) household income, and (4) home postcode, which was allocated a decile of deprivation using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, 2004).
Perceived physical environment
Data about the physical environment were not available. Both adolescents and their parents were asked about how safe they felt their neighbourhood was to be active during the day. Only 13 participants responded that they did not feel the area they lived in was ‘not very safe at all’, these results were combined with those participants that reported the area was ‘not very safe’.
Statistical Analysis
Analyses were performed using the statistical software programmes SPSS (version 24; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) and STATA MP (version 14.2). The alpha level adopted for statistical significance was p < 0.05. To detect collinearity, if a relationship existed between predictor variables, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used. Between variable correlations did not reach r ≥ 0.7, therefore, independent variables were assumed to not correlate among themselves (Vatcheva et al., 2016). Latent class analysis (LCA) derived mutually exclusive classes that maximised between-group variance and minimised within-group variance based on several model fit criteria. The expectation-maximisation algorithm was used for class derivation and assignment to identify participants who had similar combinations of dietary behaviours based on their responses to eight dietary questions. One to six classes/typologies were tested, and the ideal model was selected based on model fit statistics of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), which includes sample sizes per class, usefulness, and substantive interpretation. The number of classes was selected using a combination of parsimony and interpretability.
Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict LCA groups with socio-ecological variables. All socio-ecological variables were entered into the regression model using a stepwise method to predict the dietary behaviour typologies. Stepwise methods can automatically select the variables that will influence the model, that is, at each step, the term whose addition causes the largest statistically significant change in the −2 log-likelihood is added to the model. The final model included the significant predictors of the outcome variable. Using the variables identified as significant, a path analysis was conducted to assess the estimates of the magnitude and the significance of the hypothesised connections between socio-ecological predictors and dietary typologies. A structural equation model builder was used to draw out the models using the observed variables and the proposed pathways. Maximum likelihood was used to assess p values, 95% CI and coefficient estimates.
Results
Prior to the publication of the data by CLS two variables were imputed: (1) ethnicity, since it is a fixed attribute over time and (2) parental education qualification (Mostafa and Ploubidis, 2017). Cases were excluded for the analysis within this study if they did not have data for all dietary behaviours, (list-wise deletion) (n = 179, 2.36%) as they were perceived to be missing completely at random.
Participant characteristics
7402 adolescents aged 13–15 years (mean 13.8 ± 0.45 years) was 50.3% female and 71.3% white. Only a small percentage of adolescents were classified as being underweight (1.8%), and therefore, underweight was combined with the normal weight category, due to its low prevalence (Fitzsimons and Pongiglione, 2017).
Participants dietary typologies
The class membership of adolescents was inferred from eight dietary behaviours. The model fit criteria were based on the raw BIC score for latent class solutions, with a three-class solution deemed most appropriate, as any solution above this resulted in smaller gains in the model fit. The probabilities for the three classes were 0.83, 0.85 and 0.82 for classes 1 to 3, providing evidence of homogeneity for each subgroup (Figure 1). This means that English adolescents participating in the MCS can be divided into three mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported data on their dietary behaviours.
Figure 1.
Bayesian information criterion by number of classes.
Three dietary behaviour typologies were identified by the authors (Table 1) while the names are subjective, it was felt these names represent the dietary behaviours within the groups. Class 1 (n = 1911 25.82%) was labelled as ‘less-healthy’ with adolescents least likely to consume two portions of fruit, vegetables or breakfast daily but most likely to consume mainly white bread and drink whole milk, SSB and ASB at least daily and FF weekly. There was a higher percentage of boys compared to girls (+2.2%), non-white compared to white ethnicity (+6.0%) and adolescents living with obesity compared to overweight (+3.1%) and healthy weight (+3.1%) in this group. Class 2 (n = 2378 32.13%) was defined as ‘healthy’ as adolescents within this group were likely to consume two portions of fruit, two portions of vegetables, or breakfast daily, and least likely to consume SSB and ASB daily, or FF weekly. A higher percentage of girls compared to boys (+5.2%) white compared to non-white ethnicity (+12.7%) and adolescents living with overweight compared to obesity (+5.5%) and healthy weight (+1.6%) were in this group. Class 3 (n = 3113 42.05%) was labelled as ‘mixed’ as adolescents within this group reported sometimes healthier dietary behaviours, i.e., two portions of fruit and vegetables daily, only sometimes eating breakfast daily, drinking SSB and ASB weekly and eating FF at least once a month, mainly drinking semi-skimmed milk and eating a variety of different types of bread. The demographics of the adolescents within this group were a higher percentage of boys compared to girls (+3.1%), non-white compared to white ethnicity (+6.7%), and adolescents living with obesity compared to overweight (+1.7%) and healthy weight (+0.8%).
Table 1.
Personal characteristics of each dietary behaviour typology.
| Class 1 (%) | Class 2 (%) | Class 3 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less-healthy | Healthy | Mixed | ||
| Participants (%) | n = 1911 (25.82) | n = 2378 (32.13) | n = 3113 (42.05) | |
| Sex | Boy | 51.9 | 45.7 | 51.6 |
| Girl | 48.1 | 54.3 | 48.4 | |
| Ethnicity | White | 66.9 | 79.7 | 68.5 |
| Non-white | 33.1 | 20.3 | 31.5 | |
| BMI Classification | Obese | 21.4 | 17.4 | 19.8 |
| Overweight | 13.6 | 15.2 | 14.0 | |
| Healthy and under weight | 65.0 | 67.4 | 66.2 | |
| Fruit (≥ 2 portions a day) | Never | 23.1 | 1 | 4.1 |
| Some days | 64.7 | 30.3 | 81.4 | |
| Everyday | 12.1 | 68.7 | 14.5 | |
| Vegetable (≥ 2 portions a day) | Never | 19.9 | 0 | 3.9 |
| Some days | 63.6 | 16.8 | 77.2 | |
| Everyday | 16.6 | 83.2 | 19 | |
| Breakfast | Never | 16.6 | 2.6 | 5.7 |
| Some days but not all days | 47 | 21.7 | 43.9 | |
| Every day | 36.4 | 75.7 | 50.4 | |
| Sugar-sweetened beverages | Hardly ever or never | 12.5 | 23.2 | 0.1 |
| Less than once a month | 2.4 | 13 | 4 | |
| Less often but at least once a month | 3.9 | 24.9 | 13.1 | |
| 1–2 days a week | 5.8 | 21.4 | 39.5 | |
| 3–6 days a week | 11 | 8.8 | 34.4 | |
| Once a day | 29.7 | 6.1 | 7.7 | |
| More than once a day | 34.7 | 2.6 | 1.2 | |
| Artificial-sweetened beverages | Hardly ever or never | 29.5 | 28.1 | 8 |
| Less than once a month | 4.8 | 10.6 | 8.8 | |
| Less often but at least once a month | 5.7 | 20.1 | 19.7 | |
| 1–2 days a week | 4.3 | 18.9 | 31.3 | |
| 3–6 days a week | 8.9 | 7.8 | 27.3 | |
| Once a day | 22.3 | 7.1 | 3.9 | |
| More than once a day | 24.5 | 7.4 | 1 | |
| Fast-food | Never | 3.5 | 10.8 | 0.1 |
| Less than once a month | 10.8 | 44.6 | 13.2 | |
| Less often but at least once a month | 33.8 | 40.2 | 52.9 | |
| 1–2 days a week | 32.3 | 4.2 | 30.6 | |
| 3–6 days a week | 13 | 0 | 3 | |
| Once a day | 3.9 | 0 | 0.2 | |
| More than once a day | 2.7 | 0 | 0 | |
| Bread | I only eat white bread | 53.7 | 8.4 | 25.2 |
| I sometimes eat white bread, sometimes I eat brown or granary or wholemeal bread (including 50:50 bread) | 32.8 | 56.6 | 61.2 | |
| I only eat brown/granary bread (including 50:50 bread) | 6.5 | 10.3 | 5.9 | |
| I sometimes eat brown/granary bread (including 50:50 bread), sometimes I eat wholemeal bread | 3.7 | 13.5 | 5 | |
| I only eat wholemeal bread | 2.3 | 9.9 | 1.9 | |
| I never eat bread | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | |
| Milk | I only have whole milk | 37.8 | 10.6 | 21.1 |
| I sometimes have whole milk, sometimes I have semi-skimmed or skimmed milk | 13.7 | 14.5 | 24 | |
| I only have semi-skimmed milk | 31.1 | 49.3 | 42.7 | |
| I sometimes have semi-skimmed, sometimes I have skimmed milk | 2.6 | 7.9 | 5.2 | |
| I only have skimmed milk | 3.7 | 5.5 | 3.2 | |
| I only have 1% fat milk | 1.3 | 2.4 | 1.2 | |
| I have soya milk or other non-cow milk | 0.6 | 4.9 | 0.2 | |
| I never have milk | 9.3 | 4.9 | 2.5 |
Socio-ecological determinants of dietary behaviour typologies
Descriptives of the determinants are presented in Table 2. The results of the modelled relationship and the three dietary typologies are presented in Table 3. Mixed typology was chosen as the reference category, as when implementing strategies to improve behaviour it would be useful to think about how adolescents could move from either less healthy to mixed or mixed to healthy typology. Subsequently, all variables were entered into two regression models using a stepwise approach to predict dietary behaviour typologies (Table 4). Model 1, adolescents with an increased likelihood of being within the less-healthy typology versus mixed typology were; white compared to non-white (OR: 0.726, 95% CI = 0.532, 0.992), had a higher intention to attend university (OR: 0.992, 95% CI = 0.987, 0.996), had siblings compared to not having siblings (OR: 1.938, 95% CI: 1.358, 2.766). For each one-unit increase score, the odds of being in the less healthy typology, compared to the mixed typology, decrease for cognitive ability (OR: 0.946, 95% CI = 0.899, 0.996) and increase for social media usage (OR: 1.072, 95% CI = 1.004, 1.141).
Table 2.
Description of personal characteristics, individual, influential other, social and physical environment variables for adolescents (MCS6)
| Total | Boys | Girls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| Personal characteristics | |||||||
| Sex | 7402 | 100 | 49.7 | 50.3 | |||
| Ethnicity | White | 5273 | 71.3 | 2629 | 71.4 | 2644 | 71.1 |
| Non-white | 2080 | 28.1 | 1020 | 27.7 | 1060 | 28.5 | |
| BMI | Obese | 1377 | 19.4 | 700 | 19.5 | 677 | 19.3 |
| Over-weight | 1012 | 14.3 | 465 | 13.0 | 547 | 15.6 | |
| Healthy weight | 4698 | 64.4 | 2420 | 65.1 | 2278 | 59.9 | |
| Individual | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
| Post-school intention | 0–100 | 7336 | 87.9 ± 19.3 | 3641 | 85.4 ± 21.0 | 3695 | 90.4 ± 19.3 |
| University intention | 0–100 | 7107 | 70.2 ± 28.2 | 3497 | 66.4 ± 28.9 | 3610 | 73.8 ± 27.0 |
| Cognitive score | 0–20 | 6984 | 7.13 ± 2.6 | 3466 | 7.13 ± 2.7 | 3518 | 7.13 ± 2.5 |
| % | % | % | |||||
| Perceived weight | Underweight | 547 | 7.5 | 356 | 9.9 | 191 | 5.2 |
| About the right weight | 4301 | 59.1 | 2295 | 63.8 | 2006 | 54.4 | |
| Slightly overweight | 2073 | 28.5 | 827 | 23.0 | 1246 | 33.8 | |
| Very overweight | 360 | 4.9 | 117 | 3.3 | 243 | 6.6 | |
| Screen time usage | Low | 299 | 4.2 | 79 | 2.3 | 220 | 6.0 |
| Medium | 3895 | 55.1 | 1451 | 42.4 | 2444 | 67.0 | |
| High | 2880 | 40.7 | 1896 | 55.3 | 26.5 | 27.0 | |
| Owning a computer | Yes | 6184 | 83.6 | 3036 | 82.5 | 3148 | 84.6 |
| No | 1217 | 16.4 | 646 | 17.5 | 571 | 15.4 | |
| Days spent being physically active/a week | Every day | 1314 | 17.8 | 890 | 24.2 | 424 | 11.4 |
| 5–6 times | 1411 | 19.1 | 813 | 22.1 | 598 | 16.1 | |
| 3–4 times | 2506 | 33.9 | 1151 | 31.3 | 1355 | 36.5 | |
| 1–2 days | 1843 | 24.9 | 681 | 18.5 | 1162 | 31.3 | |
| Not at all | 322 | 4.4 | 146 | 4.0 | 176 | 4.7 | |
| Sleep/a night | >10 h | 228 | 3.3 | 126 | 3.7 | 102 | 2.9 |
| 8–10 h | 4727 | 68.0 | 2374 | 68.9 | 2350 | 67.1 | |
| <10 h | 1994 | 28.7 | 945 | 27.4 | 1049 | 30.0 | |
| Smoking | Never smoked | 6221 | 85.6 | 3111 | 86.6 | 3110 | 84.5 |
| Has smoked | 1049 | 14.4 | 480 | 13.4 | 569 | 15.5 | |
| Well-being | High | 3537 | 48.8 | 2037 | 56.9 | 1500 | 40.9 |
| Low | 3711 | 51.2 | 1540 | 43.1 | 2171 | 59.1 | |
| Perceived health | Excellent | 920 | 12.4 | 609 | 16.5 | 311 | 8.4 |
| Very good | 2727 | 36.9 | 1399 | 38.0 | 1328 | 35.7 | |
| Good | 2740 | 37.0 | 1257 | 34.2 | 1483 | 39.9 | |
| Fair | 860 | 11.6 | 500 | 13.5 | 500 | 13.5 | |
| Poor | 150 | 2.0 | 95 | 2.6 | 95 | 2.6 | |
| Self-esteem | High | 5344 | 74.2 | 3021 | 84.7 | 2323 | 63.8 |
| Low | 1863 | 25.8 | 544 | 15.3 | 1319 | 36.2 | |
| Influential others | |||||||
| Parental status | 1 parent/carer | 1830 | 24.7 | 903 | 24.5 | 927 | 24.9 |
| ≥2 parents/carers | 5572 | 75.3 | 2779 | 75.5 | 2793 | 75.1 | |
| Discipline | High | 3733 | 53.2 | 1900 | 55.2 | 1833 | 51.3 |
| Low | 3282 | 46.8 | 1545 | 44.8 | 1737 | 48.7 | |
| Siblings | 0 | 1017 | 13.7 | 475 | 12.9 | 542 | 14.6 |
| ≥ | 6385 | 86.3 | 3207 | 87.1 | 3178 | 85.4 | |
| Parent perceived health | Excellent | 1447 | 20.8 | 751 | 21.7 | 696 | 19.9 |
| Very good | 2314 | 33.3 | 1133 | 32.8 | 1181 | 33.8 | |
| Good | 2092 | 30.1 | 1033 | 29.9 | 1059 | 30.4 | |
| Fair | 794 | 11.4 | 393 | 11.4 | 401 | 11.5 | |
| Poor | 299 | 4.3 | 147 | 4.3 | 152 | 4.4 | |
| Eating as a family/week | Every day | 3003 | 45.6 | 1480 | 45.3 | 1523 | 46.0 |
| Most days | 1975 | 30.0 | 962 | 29.4 | 1013 | 30.6 | |
| At least once | 1403 | 21.3 | 722 | 22.1 | 681 | 20.6 | |
| Not at all | 199 | 2.7 | 105 | 3.2 | 94 | 2.8 | |
| Spending time with friends out of school | Most days | 2504 | 33.8 | 1301 | 37.0 | 1203 | 33.1 |
| At least once a week | 2447 | 33.1 | 1214 | 34.6 | 1233 | 34.0 | |
| At least once a month | 1350 | 18.2 | 593 | 16.9 | 757 | 20.8 | |
| Less than once a month | 559 | 7.6 | 272 | 7.7 | 287 | 7.9 | |
| Never | 284 | 3.8 | 133 | 3.8 | 151 | 4.2 | |
| Social media/week | None | 630 | 8.5 | 424 | 11.5 | 206 | 5.5 |
| <half an hour | 956 | 12.9 | 639 | 17.4 | 317 | 8.5 | |
| Half-1 h | 1089 | 14.7 | 651 | 17.7 | 438 | 11.8 | |
| 1–2 h | 1246 | 16.8 | 653 | 17.7 | 593 | 15.9 | |
| 2–3 h | 1118 | 15.1 | 503 | 13.7 | 615 | 16.5 | |
| 3–5 h | 999 | 13.5 | 369 | 10.0 | 630 | 16.9 | |
| 5–7 h | 712 | 9.6 | 235 | 6.4 | 477 | 12.8 | |
| 7+ hours | 648 | 8.8 | 206 | 5.6 | 442 | 11.9 | |
| Social environment | |||||||
| Parent education | Higher degree and postgraduate qualifications | 535 | 9.3 | 260 | 9.1 | 275 | 9.5 |
| First degree (including B.Ed.) | 1197 | 20.8 | 593 | 20.7 | 604 | 20.9 | |
| Diplomas in higher education and teaching qualifications | 944 | 16.4 | 476 | 16.6 | 468 | 16.2 | |
| A/AS levels | 500 | 8.7 | 241 | 8.4 | 259 | 9.0 | |
| O level/GCSE A-C | 1951 | 33.8 | 974 | 33.9 | 977 | 33.8 | |
| O level/GCSE < C | 637 | 11.1 | 327 | 11.4 | 310 | 10.7 | |
| Deprivation of area of residence (decile) | 1 (most deprived) | 764 | 10.3 | 396 | 10.8 | 368 | 9.9 |
| 2 | 758 | 10.3 | 389 | 10.6 | 369 | 9.9 | |
| 3 | 632 | 8.6 | 322 | 8.8 | 310 | 8.3 | |
| 4 | 955 | 12.9 | 482 | 13.1 | 473 | 12.7 | |
| 5 | 591 | 8.0 | 280 | 7.6 | 311 | 8.4 | |
| 6 | 764 | 10.3 | 375 | 10.2 | 389 | 10.5 | |
| 7 | 733 | 9.9 | 364 | 9.9 | 369 | 9.9 | |
| 8 | 775 | 10.5 | 377 | 10.3 | 398 | 10.7 | |
| 9 | 693 | 9.4 | 324 | 8.8 | 369 | 9.9 | |
| 10 | 726 | 9.8 | 366 | 10.0 | 360 | 9.7 | |
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||||
| Parent cognition | 0–20 | 6254 | 10.91 ± 4.5 | 3112 | 10.93 ± 4.5 | 3142 | 10.89 ± 4.6 |
| Median | Median | Median | |||||
| Household income | 4476 | £33,000–£37,500^^ | 2239 | £37,500–£43,000^^ | 2237 | £33,000–£37,500^^ | |
| Perceived physical environment | |||||||
| % | % | % | |||||
| Adolescent perception of area safety | Very safe | 2176 | 29.4 | 1190 | 32.3 | 986 | 26.5 |
| Safe | 4651 | 62.9 | 2222 | 60.4 | 2429 | 65.3 | |
| Not very safe | 540 | 7.3 | 254 | 6.9 | 286 | 7.7 | |
| Not at all safe | 30 | 0.4 | 13 | 0.4 | 17 | 0.5 | |
| Parent perception of area safety | Very safe | 2780 | 42.3 | 1463 | 44.8 | 1317 | 39.8 |
| Safe | 3306 | 50.3 | 1571 | 48.1 | 1735 | 52.5 | |
| Not very safe | 433 | 6.6 | 206 | 6.3 | 227 | 6.9 | |
| Not at all safe | 53 | 0.8 | 25 | 0.8 | 28 | 0.8 | |
Table 3.
Socio-ecological determinants of adolescent dietary behaviour typologies
| Dietary typology – reference mixed typology | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less healthy | Healthy | |||||||||
| Independent variable | Responses | Reference category | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | p value | ||
| Personal characteristics | ||||||||||
| Gender | Male | Female | 0.974 | 0.831 | 1.142 | 0.746 | .923 | 0.800 | 1.066 | 0.276 |
| Ethnicity | White | Non-white | 0.773* | 0.660 | 0.906 | 0.001 | 2.247** | 1.924 | 2.625 | <0.001 |
| BMI | Obese | Healthy and underweight | 0.898 | 0.696 | 1.160 | 0.412 | 0.967 | 0.766 | 1.220 | 0.775 |
| Obese and Overweight | Healthy and underweight | 0.916 | 0.735 | 1.142 | 0.436 | 1.161 | 0.955 | 1.412 | 0.134 | |
| Individual | ||||||||||
| Post-school intention | Ordinal | 0.996* | 0.992 | 1.000 | 0.047 | 1.008* | 1.003 | 1.013 | 0.001 | |
| University intention | Ordinal | 0.992** | 0.989 | 0.995 | <0.001 | 1.008** | 1.005 | 1.011 | <0.001 | |
| Perceived weight | Underweight | Very overweight | 0.839 | 0.540 | 1.305 | 0.437 | 0.557* | 0.351 | 0.883 | 0.013 |
| About the right weight | Very overweight | 0.772 | 0.531 | 1.123 | 0.176 | 0.804 | 0.545 | 1.186 | 0.271 | |
| Slightly overweight | Very overweight | 0.884 | 0.626 | 1.247 | 0.481 | 0.895 | 0.622 | 1.289 | 0.552 | |
| Screen time | Low usage | High usage | 1.238 | 0.800 | 1.918 | 0.338 | 3.820** | 2.687 | 5.430 | <0.001 |
| Medium usage | High usage | 0.926 | 0.798 | 1.075 | 0.314 | 1.753** | 1.522 | 2.081 | <0.001 | |
| Own a computer | Not owning a computer | 1.089 | 0.898 | 1.321 | 0.387 | 0.850 | 0.714 | 1.012 | 0.067 | |
| Physical activity | Every day | Not being physically active | 0.597* | 0.406 | 0.877 | 0.009 | 1.258 | 0.805 | 1.967 | 0.314 |
| 5–6 days | Not being physically active | 0.413** | 0.282 | 0.606 | <0.001 | 1.135 | 0.731 | 1.763 | 0.572 | |
| 3–4 days | Not being physically active | 0.450** | 0.312 | 0.648 | <0.001 | 1.174 | 0.764 | 1.804 | 0.465 | |
| 1–2 days | Not being physically active | 0.597* | 0.413 | 0.864 | 0.006 | 1.001 | 0.647 | 1.551 | 0.995 | |
| Sleep | > 10 h sleep | < 8 h | 0.864 | 0.561 | 1.332 | 0.508 | 1.737* | 1.179 | 2.558 | 0.005 |
| 8–10 h sleep | < 8 h | 0.751** | 0.643 | 0.877 | <0.001 | 1.194* | 1.029 | 1.386 | 0.019 | |
| Not-smoking | Smoking | 0.700** | 0.578 | 0.847 | <0.001 | 1.466* | 1.18 | 1.823 | 0.001 | |
| Well-being | Low | 0.940 | 0.801 | 1.104 | 0.450 | 1.242* | 1.071 | 1.439 | 0.004 | |
| Perceived health | Excellent | Poor | 0.803 | 0.479 | 1.346 | 0.405 | 5.475** | 2.673 | 11.217 | <0.001 |
| Very good | Poor | 0.650 | 0.405 | 1.041 | 0.073 | 3.034* | 1.512 | 6.09 | 0.002 | |
| Good | Poor | 0.665 | 0.420 | 1.053 | 0.082 | 2.048* | 1.025 | 4.092 | 0.042 | |
| Fair | Poor | 0.819 | 0.509 | 1.317 | 0.410 | 1.638 | 0.802 | 3.346 | 0.176 | |
| Self-esteem | Low | 0.915 | 0.762 | 1.098 | 0.340 | 0.783* | 0.656 | 0.934 | 0.007 | |
| Cognitive score | Ordinal data (low to high) | 0.927** | 0.899 | 0.956 | <0.001 | 1.131** | 1.103 | 1.161 | <0.001 | |
| Influential others | ||||||||||
| Parental status | 2 parents | 1.376** | 1.185 | 1.599 | <0.001 | 0.731** | 0.623 | 0.857 | <0.001 | |
| Discipline | Low | 0.893 | 0.781 | 1.02 | 0.095 | 0.875* | 0.772 | 0.992 | 0.037 | |
| Siblings | Not having siblings | 1.192 | 0.976 | 1.455 | 0.085 | 1.279* | 1.058 | 1.545 | 0.011 | |
| Parental perceived health | Excellent | Poor | 0.656* | 0.477 | 0.903 | 0.010 | 4.006** | 2.576 | 6.231 | <0.001 |
| Very good | Poor | 0.793 | 0.588 | 1.072 | 0.131 | 3.448** | 2.233 | 5.325 | <0.001 | |
| Good | Poor | 0.749 | 0.555 | 1.009 | 0.058 | 2.374** | 1.533 | 3.676 | <0.001 | |
| Fair | Poor | 0.788 | 0.568 | 1.095 | 0.156 | 1.819* | 1.14 | 2.902 | 0.012 | |
| Family meal frequency | Every day | Not at all | 0.755 | 0.53 | 1.074 | 0.118 | 2.095* | 1.306 | 3.362 | 0.002 |
| Most days | Not at all | 0.665* | 0.464 | 0.953 | 0.026 | 2.107* | 1.308 | 3.394 | 0.002 | |
| At least once a week | Not at all | 0.728 | 0.505 | 1.050 | 0.089 | 1.592 | 0.982 | 2.581 | 0.059 | |
| Spending time with friends | Most days | Not at all | 0.754 | 0.528 | 1.076 | 0.120 | 0.864 | 0.592 | 1.259 | 0.446 |
| At least once a week | Not at all | 0.517** | 0.363 | 0.738 | <0.001 | 1.025 | 0.707 | 1.485 | 0.898 | |
| At least once a month | Not at all | 0.501** | 0.346 | 0.724 | <0.001 | 1.127 | 0.771 | 1.646 | 0.537 | |
| Less often than once a month | Not at all | 0.699 | 0.467 | 1.047 | 0.082 | 0.978 | 0.645 | 1.481 | 0.915 | |
| Social media | Ordinal data (less to more) | 1.089** | 1.051 | 1.128 | <0.001 | 0.819** | 0.791 | 0.848 | <0.001 | |
| Social environment | ||||||||||
| Parent education | Higher degree/post grad dip | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.572* | 0.357 | 0.916 | 0.020 | 1.837* | 1.208 | 2.794 | 0.004 |
| First degree | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.536* | 0.365 | 0.789 | 0.002 | 2.126** | 1.468 | 3.08 | <0.001 | |
| Diploma in HE/teaching qualification | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.686* | 0.485 | 0.970 | 0.033 | 1.417 | 0.983 | 2.041 | 0.061 | |
| A/AS level | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.672 | 0.446 | 1.014 | 0.058 | 1.334 | 0.884 | 2.013 | 0.170 | |
| O Level/GCSE A-C | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.720* | 0.536 | 0.969 | 0.030 | 1.130 | 0.805 | 1.587 | 0.481 | |
| Parent cognition | Ordinal data (low to high) | 0.977 | 0.950 | 1.004 | 0.098 | 1.078** | 1.053 | 1.104 | <0.001 | |
| Household income | Ordinal data (low to high) | 0.966* | 0.942 | 0.990 | 0.006 | 1.053** | 1.031 | 1.077 | <0.001 | |
| Deprivation | 1 | 10 – least deprived | 0.807 | 0.522 | 1.248 | 0.335 | 0.970 | 0.696 | 1.353 | 0.859 |
| 2 | 10 – least deprived | 1.025 | 0.671 | 1.566 | 0.910 | 1.014 | 0.720 | 1.426 | 0.938 | |
| 3 | 10 – least deprived | 1.438 | 0.940 | 2.199 | 0.094 | 0.936 | 0.650 | 1.348 | 0.721 | |
| 4 | 10 – least deprived | 1.178 | 0.795 | 1.746 | 0.414 | 0.747 | 0.535 | 1.042 | 0.086 | |
| 5 | 10 – least deprived | 1.175 | 0.745 | 1.853 | 0.488 | 1.161 | 0.799 | 1.687 | 0.434 | |
| 6 | 10 – least deprived | 1.209 | 0.794 | 1.843 | 0.377 | 0.847 | 0.594 | 1.210 | 0.362 | |
| 7 | 10 – least deprived | 1.392 | 0.905 | 2.142 | 0.132 | 1.054 | 0.732 | 1.517 | 0.777 | |
| 8 | 10 – least deprived | 1.028 | 0.674 | 1.567 | 0.899 | 0.806 | 0.567 | 1.147 | 0.231 | |
| 9 | 10 – least deprived | 1.233 | 0.806 | 1.886 | 0.335 | 0.845 | 0.589 | 1.212 | 0.361 | |
| Perceived physical environment | ||||||||||
| Adolescent perception | Very safe | Not at all safe | 0.903 | 0.339 | 2.404 | 0.839 | 1.137 | 0.962 | 1.344 | 0.133 |
| Safe | Not at all safe | 0.735 | 0.278 | 1.941 | 0.534 | 0.795 | 0.294 | 2.15 | 0.651 | |
| Not very safe | Not at all safe | 1.131 | 0.423 | 3.020 | 0.807 | 0.470 | 0.175 | 1.264 | 0.135 | |
| Parent perception | Very safe | Not at all safe | 0.656 | 0.359 | 1.200 | 0.171 | 0.462 | 0.169 | 1.267 | 0.133 |
| Safe | Not at all safe | 0.817 | 0.449 | 1.485 | 0.507 | 3.932* | 1.470 | 10.517 | 0.006 | |
| Not very safe | Not at all safe | 0.865 | 0.463 | 1.615 | 0.648 | 3.170* | 1.187 | 8.462 | 0.021 | |
OR = odds ratio; *p < 0.05 **p < 0.001.
Table 4.
Socio-ecological determinants of adolescent dietary behaviour typologies using stepwise approach.
| Dietary typology – reference mixed typology | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less-healthy typology | Healthy typology | |||||||||
| Independent variable | Responses | Reference category | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | p value | ||
| Personal characteristics | ||||||||||
| Gender | Male | Female | 1.174 | 0.898 | 1.535 | 0.240 | 0.677** | 0.544 | 0.842 | <0.001 |
| Ethnicity | White | Non-white | 0.726* | 0.532 | 0.992 | 0.044 | 1.339* | 1.011 | 1.774 | 0.042 |
| BMI | Obese and overweight | Healthy and underweight | 0.870 | 0.677 | 1.118 | 0.277 | 1.553** | 1.264 | 1.915 | <0.001 |
| Individual | ||||||||||
| University intention | Ordinal data | 0.992** | 0.987 | 0.996 | <0.001 | 1.005* | 1.001 | 1.009 | 0.009 | |
| Screen time | Low usage | High usage | 1.239 | 0.585 | 2.623 | 0.575 | 2.475* | 1.455 | 4.225 | 0.001 |
| Medium usage | High usage | 0.892 | 0.698 | 1.141 | 0.364 | 1.665** | 1.348 | 2.057 | <0.001 | |
| Physical activity | Every day | Not being physically active | 0.652 | 0.326 | 1.301 | 0.225 | 1.373 | 0.667 | 2.825 | 0.389 |
| 5–6 days | Not being physically active | 0.476* | 0.249 | 0.943 | 0.033 | 1.229 | 0.604 | 2.499 | 0.570 | |
| 3–4 days | Not being physically active | 0.536 | 0.277 | 1.036 | 0.064 | 1.38 | 0.688 | 2.768 | 0.365 | |
| 1–2 days | Not being physically active | 0.844 | 0.435 | 1.638 | 0.616 | 1.109 | 0.546 | 2.253 | 0.774 | |
| Sleep | > 10 h sleep | < 8 h | 1.219 | 0.542 | 2.743 | 0.631 | 2.731** | 1.392 | 5.356 | 0.003 |
| 8–10 h sleep | < 8 h | 0.813 | 0.631 | 1.047 | 0.109 | 1.160 | 0.933 | 1.442 | 0.181 | |
| Not-smoking | Smoking | 0.796 | 0.572 | 1.109 | 0.178 | 1.332 | 0.958 | 1.853 | 0.088 | |
| Wellbeing | Low | 0.811 | 0.634 | 1.038 | 0.097 | 1.147 | 0.937 | 1.403 | 0.183 | |
| Perceived health | Excellent | Poor | 0.784 | 0.321 | 1.914 | 0.594 | 4.143* | 1.355 | 12.666 | 0.013 |
| Very good | Poor | 0.674 | 0.297 | 1.529 | 0.345 | 2.128 | 0.718 | 6.306 | 0.173 | |
| Good | Poor | 0.664 | 0.296 | 1.491 | 0.321 | 1.451 | 0.491 | 4.289 | 0.501 | |
| Fair | Poor | 1.099 | 0.471 | 2.567 | 0.827 | 1.428 | 0.463 | 4.409 | 0.536 | |
| Cognitive ability | Ordinal data | 0.946* | 0.899 | 0.996 | 0.034 | 1.076** | 1.035 | 1.120 | <0.001 | |
| Influential others | ||||||||||
| Siblings | Not having siblings | 1.938** | 1.358 | 2.766 | <0.001 | 1.087 | 0.804 | 1.468 | 0.588 | |
| Social media | Ordinal data (less to more) | 1.072* | 1.004 | 1.141 | 0.038 | 0.863** | 0.817 | 0.911 | <0.001 | |
| Social environment | ||||||||||
| Higher degree/post grad dip | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.743 | 0.416 | 1.329 | 0.317 | 1.686* | 1.023 | 2.785 | 0.041 | |
| First degree | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.819 | 0.512 | 1.309 | 0.404 | 1.959* | 1.258 | 3.052 | 0.003 | |
| Diploma in HE/teaching qualification | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.877 | 0.588 | 1.377 | 0.628 | 1.568* | 1.013 | 2.426 | 0.044 | |
| A/AS level | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.979 | 0.593 | 1.618 | 0.935 | 1.415 | 0.869 | 2.303 | 0.163 | |
| O Level/GCSE A-C | CSE/GCSE lower than C | 0.904 | 0.623 | 1.322 | 0.574 | 1.241 | 0.827 | 1.864 | 0.297 | |
| Parent cognition | Ordinal data | 0.973 | 0.945 | 1.008 | 0.129 | 1.073** | 1.043 | 1.105 | <0.001 | |
| Household income | Ordinal data | 0.983 | 0.953 | 1.014 | 0.269 | 1.043* | 1.016 | 1.071 | 0.002 | |
OR = odds ratio; *p < 0.05 **p < 0.001.
Model 2, adolescents with an increased likelihood of being within the healthy typology versus mixed typology were; male compared to female (OR: 0.677, 95%CI = 0.544, 0.842), being white ethnicity compared to non-white (OR: 1.339, 95% CI = 1.011, 1.774), living with obese and overweight compared to not (OR: 1.553, 95% CI = 1.264, 1.915), both low (OR: 2.475, 95% CI = 1.455, 4.225) and medium (OR: 1.665, 95% CI = 1.348, 2.057) screen usage compared to high usage, having greater than 10 hours sleep compared to <8 hours (OR: 2.731, 95% CI = 1.392, 5.356) and parental education, having a higher degree/post graduate diploma (β = 1.686, 95% CI = 1.023, 2.785) and first degree (β = 1.959, 95% CI = 1.258, 3.052) compared to CSE/GCSE lower than grade C. For each one-unit increase score, the odds of being in the healthy typology, compared to the mixed typology, increased for having higher intention to attend university (OR: 1.005, 95% CI = 1.001, 1.009), higher parent cognition (OR: 1.073, 95% CI = 1.043, 1.105) higher household income (OR: 1.043, 95% CI = 1.043, 1.016), whilst decrease for higher social media usage (OR: 0.863, 95% CI = 0.817, 0.911).
Path analysis of socio-ecological determinants on dietary behaviour typologies
Variables that were statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the stepwise analysis were included in the path analysis. Initial path analyses were performed, and estimates were calculated for different combinations of dietary typology (Table 5). Whilst the magnitude of coefficients is relatively small, statistically significant associations between less-healthy and mixed dietary behaviour typology were university intention (coefficient β = 0.004, 95% CI = 0.002, 0.005), physical activity (β = −0.074, 95% CI = −0.115, −0.033), and having siblings (β = 0.246, 95% CI = 0.105, 0.387). When comparing healthy and mixed dietary behaviour typologies the most significant associations included university intention (β = −0.002, 95% CI = −0.002, −0.001), screen time (β = 0.104, 95% CI = 0.067, 0.141), cognitive ability (β = −0.016, 95% CI = −0.024, −0.008), social media usage (β = 0.035, 95% CI = 0.024, 0.046), parent qualification (β = 0.027, 95% CI = 0.012, 0.041) and parent cognitive ability (β = −0.013, 95% CI = 0.018, −0.007).
Table 5.
Path analysis of socio-ecological variables on dietary behaviour typologies (reference less healthy).
| Dietary typologies | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less healthy and mixed | Healthy and mixed | Less-healthy and healthy | Less-healthy, healthy and mixed | |||||||||
| Independent Variable | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | ||||
| Characteristics | ||||||||||||
| Gender | 0.075 | −0.025 | 0.174 | −0.064* | −0.107 | −0.020 | 0.062* | 0.018 | 0.106 | 0.002 | −0.060 | 0.064 |
| Ethnicity | −0.158* | −0.275 | −0.041 | −0.080* | 0.025 | 0.134 | −0.104** | −0.158 | −0.050 | −0.056 | −0.132 | 0.019 |
| BMI | −0.010 | −0.103 | 0.083 | −0.060 | 0.019 | 0.101 | −0.063* | −0.105 | −0.021 | −0.013 | −0.046 | 0.071 |
| Individual | ||||||||||||
| University intention | 0.004** | 0.002 | 0.005 | −0.002** | −0.002 | −0.001 | −0.002** | −0.002 | −0.004 | −0.002* | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Screen time | −0.037* | 0.121 | 0.046 | 0.104** | 0.066 | 0.141 | −0.076** | −0.114 | −0.038 | −0.037 | −0.016 | 0.090 |
| Physical activity | −0.074** | −0.115 | −0.001 | 0.029* | 0.010 | 0.047 | −0.047** | −0.066 | −0.029 | −0.020 | −0.049 | 0.003 |
| Sleep | −0.091* | −0.180 | −0.001 | −0.009* | −0.014 | −0.004 | −0.067* | −0.106 | −0.027 | −0.012 | −0.068, | 0.045 |
| Cognitive ability | 0.028* | 0.009 | 0.047 | −0.016** | −0.024 | −0.008 | −0.016** | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.004 | −0.007 | 0.015 |
| Influential others | ||||||||||||
| Siblings | 0.246* | 0.105 | 0.387 | 0.028 | −0.033 | 0.089 | 0.057 | −0.001 | 0.115 | 0.124* | 0.034, | 0.210 |
| Social media | −0.028* | −0.052 | −0.004 | 0.035** | −0.052 | −0.004 | −0.035** | −0.046 | −0.025 | 0.002 | −0.013 | 0.017 |
| Social environment | ||||||||||||
| Parent qualification | −0.015 | −0.047 | 0.017 | 0.027** | 0.012 | 0.041 | −0.024* | −0.039 | −0.009 | 0.006 | −0.014 | 0.027 |
| Parent cognitive ability | 0.011 | −0.002 | 0.024 | −0.013** | −0.018 | −0.007 | 0.014** | 0.008 | 0.020 | −0.001 | −0.009 | 0.007 |
| Household income | 0.010 | −0.001 | 0.022 | −0.009* | −0.014 | −0.004 | 0.012** | 0.007 | 0.017 | 0.002 | −0.006 | 0.009 |
Coefficient (95% CI). *p < 0.05 **p < 0.001
All pathways drawn between the less-healthy and healthy typologies demonstrated significant associations except for siblings. Gender (β = 0.062, 95% CI = 0.018, 0.106), ethnicity (β = −0.104, 95% CI = −0.158, −0.050), BMI (β = −0.063, 95%CI = −0.105, −0.022), university intention (β = 0.003, 95% CI = 0.002, 0.003), screen time (β = −0.076, 95% CI = 0.002, 0.004), physical activity (β = −0.047, 95% CI = −0.066, −0.029), sleep (β = 0.016, 95% CI = −0.016, −0.027), cognitive ability (β = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.008, 0.024), social media usage (β = −0.035, 95% CI = −0.046, −0.025), parent qualifications (β = −0.024, 95% CI = −0.034, −0.009), parent cognition (β = 0.014, 95% CI = 0.008, 0.020) and income (β = 0.012, 95% CI = 0.007, 0.017) were all related to the extremes for dietary typologies.
The final path analysis (Table 5) used all three dietary behaviour typologies as dependent variables. Only two determinants reached statistical significance: university intention (β = 0.002, 95% CI = 0.001, 0.003) and siblings (β = 0.124, 95% CI 0.048, 0.209). Further model development including gender, ethnicity, and BMI as possibilities for predicting the variance of other determinants in the model was attempted, however, the model fit was poor.
Discussion
This study used the concept of a systems framework to consider the clustering of dietary behaviours and socio-ecological determinants in a national sample of adolescents. Path analysis was conducted to assess the estimates of the magnitude and significance of hypothesised connections between socio-ecological predictors and dietary typologies. Analyses revealed three typologies of dietary behaviours: healthy, less-healthy and mixed, with clear distinctions of dietary behaviours between them. The mixed dietary typology had the largest percentage (42.05%) of adolescents, which acknowledges many participants identified with a combination of dietary behaviours (e.g., consuming fruit, vegetables, but also FF and SSB). It is important to recognise when interpreting the magnitude of coefficients within the path analysis presented in this study, there is often only a small to moderate effect. A coefficient with a magnitude around 0.1 or less may suggest a relatively weak relationship between the variables. By examining associations with different combinations of dietary behaviour typology, it was perhaps not surprising, that depending on the typologies entered into the model, the coefficients altered. Small effects can be statistically significant, especially in large sample sizes, and may be meaningful in the context of recognising the importance of targeting multiple behaviours if we are to improve adolescent dietary behaviours.
To target health behaviour change and recognise the importance of a systems approach (Bagnall et al., 2019; Rutter et al., 2017), it is essential to consider multiple socio-ecological layers simultaneously. Indeed, the findings presented in this study illustrate that influences on adolescent dietary behaviour are derived from multiple socio-ecological layers. Personal characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, and BMI, had one of the smallest impacts on typologies compared to the other layers. This is important in recognising that the influence of dietary behaviours goes beyond the individual. Indeed, these findings highlight the role that society may have in positive adolescent development including restricting screen time, encouraging physical activity, developing cognitive ability, and promoting a positive social environment.
Targeting multiple socio-ecological layers simultaneously recognises external influences on adolescent behaviours. This study supports the findings of previous studies reporting an association between family meal frequency and healthier dietary behaviours (Levin et al., 2012; Pearson et al., 2009; Stewart and Menning, 2009). However, as part of the family influence, this study included having siblings as a potential influence and found that this was positively associated with being in the mixed dietary behaviour typology, when compared to the less-healthy typology, although statistical significance did not extend to the healthy typology. The role of siblings in dietary behaviours has not been widely reported, possibly due to the challenge, if not impossible, of changing this determinant. However, siblings play a part in the family structure and therefore, future studies should investigate the complex relationship and mechanisms between parental marital status, and family structure, including siblings. Current interventions are often aimed at families and focus on consuming meals as a family (Dwyer et al., 2015), however, family-based interventions to address the intake of less-healthy foods may be useful for improving adolescent dietary behaviours (Bogl et al., 2017).
A modern external influence on adolescent dietary behaviours is the use of social media. Our findings corroborate those of other studies (Finger et al., 2015; Kenney and Gortmaker, 2017; Lipsky and Iannotti, 2012), about the increased use of screen time having a negative impact on dietary behaviours. Social networking sites have successfully been used as a tool for delivering healthcare education and interventions (Laranjo et al., 2014). Given their popularity among teens, promoting healthy eating via these sites may provide a platform to positively change behaviours. Future research should clarify the independent contributions of different types of screen usage on dietary behaviours.
This study found an association between parental education, household income, and food choice. Notably, adolescents with parents with higher cognitive scores and higher household income were more likely to have healthier dietary behaviours. Despite Darmon and Drewnowski (2015) suggesting that socioeconomic disparities in diet quality may be explained by the higher cost of healthy diets and the potential inaccessibility of fresh whole foods in some neighbourhoods, Laraia et al. (2017) suggest that the relationship is more complex. They suggest that the burdens of uncertainty with employment, food and housing, in families with lower incomes, can threaten well-being leading to psychological and cognitive burden. These in turn can influence bio-behavioural pathways (e.g., psychological distress, short sleep duration), subsequently predisposing to poorer dietary behaviours.
In contrast to previous literature (Moore and Littlecott, 2015; Niven et al., 2013) and other social environment factors, deprivation measured by deciles of IMD, was not associated with dietary behaviours. These findings may be a result of considering deprivation at an area level (i.e., postcode), which suggests that adolescents within deciles of IMD have the same characteristics and is not sensitive enough as a measure. Further sensitive measures of deprivation, for example, the MacArthur ladder SES and perceived SES, beyond deciles may be more informative, as per findings from other literature (Tan et al., 2020). However, the data does imply that there is an urgent need for effective social and public health policies to tackle socioeconomic inequalities in dietary behaviours.
The strengths of this study include the consideration of a wide range of socio-ecological determinants (personal characteristics, individual, influential others, social and perceived physical environment), the large national sample size, and the ability to determine the relative influence of factors at multiple levels individually and in combination. However, limitations include the use of self-reported cross-sectional data, presented in this study which was restricted to a narrow age range (14 years) and ethnic grouping, therefore inference of the results to other age groups or smaller ethnic minorities may be problematic. However, mid-adolescence is an important age to potentially influence behaviours therefore, it is important to assess dietary behaviours given the links to future health (Afshin et al., 2019). The limited number of dietary behaviour questions, with no indication of portion sizes, and the potential influence of social desirability bias could lead to a difference in the interpretation of the questions. However, the large sample size, representing all SES groups provided a good reflection of the general population of English adolescents, allowing for typologies of dietary behaviour to be established.
The current analysis was based on a rich source of national data, however, the contribution of socio-ecological variables that could be included within the model for each layer depended on those available as part of the Millennium Cohort Study. For example, it may have been that the physical environment as a socio-ecological layer has a higher level of importance but was limited by the measures that were available. The lack of data on the perceived availability of food to the participants needs to be acknowledged as previous literature has indicated this is an important determinant of eating behaviours (Pearson et al., 2009). The data was collected in 2014 and subsequently published by the centre for longitudinal studies in 2017, due to the time required to process the data. Since 2014, there has been an increase in social media platforms as well as screen time opportunities. As such, these changes may have a substantive impact on adolescent dietary behaviours and therefore require further investigation in future studies.
Conclusion
This study reported how three distinct dietary behaviour typologies were associated with multiple socio-ecological factors, recognising the importance of a systems approach for improving adolescent dietary behaviours. Notable findings include: (i) the inverse relationship between screen time, social media usage, and healthy dietary behaviours; (ii) the inverse relationship between intention to attend University and having siblings and less-healthy dietary behaviours and (iii) a positive relationship between cognition, parent cognition and household income and the healthy dietary behaviours. These findings were supported by path analysis, which identified that intention to attend university, screen time and social media usage, physical activity, adolescent and parent cognition, and parental qualification were most significantly associated with dietary behaviour typology. It should be noted that we are at risk of over-interpretation of findings if we do not recognise that these findings altered depending on the combination of typologies entered into the model; however, they highlight the need to move away from silo behaviours on individual dietary behaviours, and a step towards more systems thinking to tackle dietary behaviour change.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS), UCL Social Research Institute, for the use of these data and to the U.K. Data Service for making them available. However, neither CLS nor the U.K. Data Service bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of these data.
Footnotes
Authors contributors: HCG, SMG, LCD and CG designed the study. HCG conducted the statistical analysis. HCG wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials: Data supporting this research are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Consent for publication: The authors give my consent for the publication of this research in the journal in which the manuscript is submitted.
Ethical standards disclosure: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Ethical approval for the MCS6 surveys and obtained by Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) and from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Research Ethics Committee (REC) London – Central (REC ref: 13/LO/1786). Ethical clearance was granted for the use of data by the local research ethics committee of the School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects/patients.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD: Hannah C. Greatwood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-499X
References
- Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, et al. (2019) Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. The Lancet 393(10184): 1958–1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bagnall AM, Radley D, Jones R, et al. (2019) Whole systems approaches to obesity and other complex public health challenges: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 19(1): 1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beydoun MA, Wang Y. (2011) Socio-demographic disparities in distribution shifts over time in various adiposity measures among American children and adolescents: What changes in prevalence rates could not reveal. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity : IJPO : An Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 6(1): 21–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bogl LH, Silventoinen K, Hebestreit A, et al. (2017) Familial Resemblance in Dietary Intakes of Children, Adolescents, and Parents: Does Dietary Quality Play a Role?.
- Closs SJ. (1976) APU Vocabulary Test (Multiple Choice Format, 1986). Kent: Hodder and Stoughton Educational Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Connelly R, Platt L. (2014) Cohort profile: UK millennium cohort study (mcs). International Journal of Epidemiology 43(6): 1719–1725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dai H, Alsalhe TA, Chalghaf N, et al. (2020) The global burden of disease attributable to high body mass index in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: An analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study. PLoS Medicine 17(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Darmon N, Drewnowski A. (2015) Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: A systematic review and analysis. Nutrition Reviews 73(10): 643–660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer L, Oh A, Patrick H, et al. (2015) Medicine and Therapeutics 2015:6 115-131 Adolescent Health. Medicine and Therapeutics Dovepress. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Finger JD, Varnaccia G, Tylleskär T, et al. (2015) Dietary behaviour and parental socioeconomic position among adolescents: The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents 2003-2006 (KiGGS). BMC Public Health 15(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fitzsimons E, Pongiglione B. (2017) Prevalence and trends in overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence findings from the Millennium Cohort Study, with a focus on age 14. Available at: www.cls.ioe.ac.uk (accessed 7 July 2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Griffiths LJ, Hawkins SS, Cole TJ, et al. (2010) Risk factors for rapid weight gain in preschool children: Findings from a UK-wide prospective study. International Journal of Obesity 34(4): 624–632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- IMD (2004) The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Communities and Local Government. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney EL, Gortmaker SL. (2017) United States Adolescents’ television, computer, videogame, smartphone, and tablet use: Associations with sugary drinks, sleep, physical activity, and obesity. The Journal of Pediatrics 182: 144–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Laraia BA, Leak TM, Tester JM, et al. (2017) Biobehavioral factors that shape nutrition in low-income populations: A narrative review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 52(2): S118–S126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, et al. (2014) The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 22(1): 243–256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levin KA, Kirby J, Currie C. (2012) Family structure and breakfast consumption of 11-15 year old boys and girls in Scotland, 1994-2010: A repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 12(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lipsky LM, Iannotti RJ. (2012) Associations of television viewing with eating behaviors in the 2009 health behaviour in school-aged children study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 166(5): 465–472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore GF, Littlecott HJ. (2015) School- and family-level socioeconomic status and health behaviors: Multilevel analysis of a national survey in Wales, United Kingdom. Journal of School Health 85(4): 267–275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mostafa T, Ploubidis G. (2017) Millennium Cohort Study Sixth Survey 2015-2016 Technical Report on Response (Age 14). Centre for Longitudinal Study, London. [Google Scholar]
- Niven P, Scully M, Morley B, et al. (2013) Socio-economic disparities in Australian adolescents’ eating behaviours. Public Health Nutrition 17(12): 2753–2758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pearson N, MacFarlane A, Crawford D, et al. (2009) Family circumstance and adolescent dietary behaviours. Appetite 52(3): 668–674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Public Health England (2015) SACN Carbohydrates and Health Report. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report (accessed 6 June 2023).
- Public Health England (2019) Saturated fats and health: SACN report. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/saturated-fats-and-health-sacn-report (accessed 6 June 2023).
- Public Health England (2020) NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 (2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019 (accessed 18 May 2021).
- Rosenberg M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, et al. (2017) The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet 390(10112): 2602–2604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sleddens EFC, Kroeze W, Kohl LFM, et al. (2015) Correlates of dietary behavior in adults: An umbrella review. Nutrition Reviews 73(8): 477–499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stewart SD, Menning CL. (2009) Family structure, nonresident father involvement, and adolescent eating patterns. Journal of Adolescent Health 45(2): 193–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stokols D. (1996) Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion 10(4): 282–298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tan JJX, Kraus MW, Carpenter NC, et al. (2020) The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 146: 970–1020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- University of London (2007) UCL Social Research Institute. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Millennium Cohort Study, 6th Edition Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]. Available at: https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/data-access-training/citing-our-data/ (accessed 1 March 2023). [Google Scholar]
- US Department of Health and Human Services (2012) No Title. Available at: https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health/adolescent-development-explained. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Vatcheva KP, Lee M, McCormick JB, et al. (2016) Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale, Calif.) 6(2): 27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vos T, Abajobir AA, Abbafati C, et al. (2017) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. The Lancet 390(10100): 1211–1259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]