Table 5.

Associations between dietary patterns and food choice motives dimension scores (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)

	Westernb
	Women		Men
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI
ethics and environment
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.014	[−0.013;0.041]	0.052	[−0.009; 0.114]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	−0.014	[−0.043; 0.017]	0.001	[−0.071; 0.073]
traditional and local production
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	−0.009	[−0.036; 0.017]	0.040	[−0.021; 0.103]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.012	[−0.017; 0.042]	0.064	[−0.009; 0.014]
taste
2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.007	[−0.017; 0.033]	0.002	[−0.059; 0.063]
3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile	0.037	[0.011; 0.064]	0.046	[−0.028; 0.119]
health
2nd tertile of score	−0.051	[−0.078; −0.023]	−0.114	[−0.178; −0.049]
3rd tertile of score	−0.142	[−0.170; −0.114]	−0.145	[−0.214; 0.075]
absence of contaminants
2nd tertile of score	0.005	[−0.021; 0.033]	0.019	[−0.045; 0.083]
3rd tertile of score	−0.006	[−0.034; 0.023]	−0.001	[−0.070; 0.069]
environmental limitations (above median vs under median)	0.011	[−0.010; 0.032]	−0.081	[−0.136; −0.026]
innovation (above median vs under median)	−0.001	[−0.021; 0.033]	0.045	[−0.010; 0.099]

^b: parameters estimated with multivariables linear regression models, 7 food choice dimensions scores + age, education and total energy intake; in bold: statiscally significant

β: linear regression coefficient estimate; 95% CI = Confidence interval; 95% CI = Confidence interval