Table 3.
Level of consideration of socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity in primary studies
| Study | Country of study | SES | Ethnicity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lee 2009 |
Taiwan |
0 |
1* |
| 2. Thomas & Irwin 2009 |
Canada |
1 |
1* |
| 3. Trout & Graber 2009 |
United States |
1 |
0 |
| 4. Griffiths & Page 2008 |
United Kingdom |
0 |
0 |
| 5. Daley 2008 |
United Kingdom |
2 |
2 |
| 6. Curtis 2008 |
United Kingdom |
1* |
0 |
| 7. Boyington 2008 |
United States |
1 |
3* |
| 8. Alm 2008 |
United States |
1* |
1 |
| 9. Bodiba 2008 |
South Africa |
0 |
3* |
| 10. Langley 2006 |
United States |
0 |
2 |
| 11. Wills 2006 |
United Kingdom |
3* |
0 |
| 12. Smith 2000 |
United States |
3 |
3 |
| 13. Neumark-Sztainer et al. 1999 |
United States |
0 |
2 & 3 |
| 14. Neumark-Sztainer, Story & Faibish 1998 |
United States |
1* |
3 |
| 15. Smith & Perkins 2008 | United States | 0 | 0 |
0 Not addressed – no attention paid to ethnicity &/or SES.
1 Descriptive –descriptive information was provided on the ethnicity &/or SES of participants.
2 Linked to quote – link was made between the ethnicity &/or SES of a participant and their corresponding quote.
3 Synthesised findings – attempt made to synthesise and discuss the influence of ethnicity &/or SES in the discussion.
* All participants from the same SES or ethnic group as indicated by the column in which it is displayed.