Table 4.
Logistic regressions of food purchasing motives according to nutritional status & QOL of the elderly in South Korea (N = 143)a
| Unadjustedb | Adjustedc | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Pd,e | OR (95% CI) | P | |
| Taste | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 0.887 (0.289–2.721) | 0.834 | 0.830 (0.207–3.326) | 0.793 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 0.318 (0.110–0.922) | 0.035 | 0.279 (0.083–0.939) | 0.039 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 0.544 (0.222–1.338) | 0.185 | 0.589 (0.192–1.804) | 0.354 |
| Ease of chewing | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 3.570 (1.108–11.504) | 0.033 | 6.715 (1.438–31.365) | 0.015 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 1.633 (0.579–4.609) | 0.354 | 1.837 (0.579–5.832) | 0.302 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 1.838 (0.772–4.374) | 0.169 | 1.716 (0.604–4.880) | 0.311 |
| Price | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 1.011 (0.315–3.249) | 0.985 | 0.977 (0.219–4.364) | 0.976 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 2.529 (0.625–10.233) | 0.193 | 3.260 (0.722–14.716) | 0.124 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 1.433 (0.522–3.937) | 0.485 | 2.107 (0.572–7.759) | 0.263 |
| Ease of opening the package | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 0.538 (0.187–1.552) | 0.252 | 0.279 (0.071–1.099) | 0.068 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 1.010 (0.344–2.962) | 0.986 | 0.698 (0.209–2.334) | 0.560 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 1.005 (0.407–2.480) | 0.991 | 0.536 (0.169–1.700) | 0.289 |
| Preventive or treatment effect on disease | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 2.333 (0.244–22.281) | 0.462 | 2.419 (0.207–28.308) | 0.481 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 0.528 (0.119–2.349) | 0.402 | 0.693 (0.140–3.430) | 0.653 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 0.685 (0.178–2.632) | 0.582 | 1.333 (0.267–6.649) | 0.726 |
| Nutrition quality | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 2.857 (0.311–26.207) | 0.353 | 2.590 (0.231–29.046) | 0.440 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 1.500 (0.267–8.434) | 0.645 | 3.520 (0.440–28.139) | 0.235 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 0.905 (0.253–3.230) | 0.877 | 2.660 (0.472–15.005) | 0.268 |
| Length of cooking time | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 0.512 (0.178–1.471) | 0.214 | 0.585 (0.161–2.127) | 0.415 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 1.386 (0.479–4.011) | 0.547 | 1.768 (0.542–5.770) | 0.345 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 1.027 (0.429–2.455) | 0.953 | 1.499 (0.512–4.387) | 0.460 |
| Ease to purchase | ||||
| high nutritional status & high QOL | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| high nutritional status & low QOL | 0.339 (0.112–1.026) | 0.055 | 0.382 (0.100–1.455) | 0.159 |
| low nutritional status & high QOL | 1.966 (0.551–7.005) | 0.297 | 2.259 (0.602–8.471) | 0.227 |
| low nutritional status & low QOL | 0.772 (0.308–1.938) | 0.582 | 0.951 (0.324–2.790) | 0.927 |
Abbreviations: MNA mini nutritional assessment, QOL quality of life, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, ref reference
aNutritional status and QOL are grouped by combinations of each category of nutritional status and QOL
bUnadjusted result of logistic regression analysis
cAdjusted for age, sex, marital status, education, income, and number of chronic diseases
dTrend analysis for the null hypothesis that OR = 1.0 (ref = high nutritional status & high QOL)
eValues in boldface are significant at p < 0.05