Table 2.
Association between sociodemographic and behavioural characteristics and ultra-processed foods usual consumption (g), stratified by sex (weighted for the distribution of the Portuguese population), using linear regression models
| Females | Males | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude model  (95 % CI) |
Model 1  (95 % CI) |
Model 2  (95 % CI) |
Crude model  (95 % CI) |
Model 1  (95 % CI) |
Model 2  (95 % CI) |
|
| Age group | ||||||
| Children (3–9 years) | 195 (148, 242) | 179 (130, 228) | 140 (89, 191) | 241 (195, 287) | 221 (174, 269) | 179 (128, 231) |
| Adolescents (10–17 years) | 228 (174, 282) | 215 (156, 274) | 192 (135, 249) | 367 (317, 418) | 348 (298, 398) | 327 (277, 377) |
| Younger adults (18–44 years) | 119 (88, 149) | 103 (70, 137) | 100 (67, 133) | 260 (215, 305) | 236 (191, 282) | 235 (190, 280) |
| Older adults (45–64 years) | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Elderly (65–84 years) | −80 (−109, −51) | −64 (−93, −35) | −63 (−91, −34) | −62 (−100, −23) | −41 (−82, 1) | −51 (−93, −9) |
| Region | ||||||
| North | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Centre | −4 (−35, 28) | 4 (−28, 35) | 7 (−26, 40) | −22 (−72, 29) | −4 (−53, 45) | 0 (−51, 52) |
| Lisbon Metropolitan Area | 47 (7, 87) | 39 (−1, 80) | 39 (−3, 81) | 85 (24, 146) | 70 (17, 124) | 76 (19, 133) |
| Alentejo | 34 (−10, 77) | 46 (9, 83) | 50 (9, 90) | −1 (−65, 63) | 30 (−32, 91) | 41 (−23, 106) |
| Algarve | 34 (−4, 72) | 27 (−5, 60) | 36 (1, 70) | 21 (−26, 68) | 23 (−22, 68) | 32 (−17, 80) |
| Autonomous Region of Madeira | −14 (−44, 15) | −13 (−46, 20) | −23 (−59, 13) | 21 (−33, 75) | 5 (−36, 46) | −7 (−53, 39) |
| Autonomous Region of Azores | 62 (15, 110) | 50 (7, 93) | 40 (−3, 90) | 112 (29, 194) | 91 (−12, 171) | 82 (−3, 167) |
| Education | ||||||
| ≤6 years | −136 (−166, −105) | −38 (−74, −2) | −51 (−86, −16) | −200 (−251, −148) | −64 (−120, −9) | −68 (−124, −12) |
| 7–12 years | 11 (−18, 39) | 26 (−1, 54) | 21 (−6, 49) | 9 (−35, 53) | 12 (−27, 52) | 7 (−32, 46) |
| >12 years | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Urbanisation level | ||||||
| Predominantly urban area | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Medially urban area | −10 (−40, 19) | −12 (−46, 23) | −12 (−49, 24) | −17 (−71, 37) | −2 (−47, 44) | 1 (−65, 67) |
| Predominantly rural area | −16 (−63, 32) | −21 (−63, 20) | −21 (−61, 20) | −33 (−92, 26) | −2 (−64, 60) | 0 (−47, 48) |
| Civil status | ||||||
| Single, divorced or widowed | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Married, couples | −34 (−64, -3) | −14 (−42, 13) | −10 (−38, 17) | −144 (−195, −92) | −50 (−98, −3) | −48 (−96, −1) |
| Household members | ||||||
| 1–2 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| 3–4 | 94 (64, 124) | −7 (−37, 24) | −6 (−37, 25) | 138 (95, 181) | 15 (−26, 56) | 13 (−29, 54) |
| ≥5 | 72 (22, 122) | −23 (−75, 28) | −25 (−79, 29) | 178 (101, 254) | 7 (−63, 78) | 7 (−63, 77) |
| Food insecurity | ||||||
| No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | −36 (−74, 3) | −7 (−41, 27) | −11 (−43, 22) | −64 (−145, 16) | −32 (−100, 35) | −43 (−109, 23) |
| Physical activity level | ||||||
| Inactive | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Minimally active | −25 (−58, 8) | −26 (−57, 4) | −24 (−55, 6) | −13 (−59, 32) | −17 (−58, 23) | −11 (−52, 30) |
| Active | 0 (−40, 40) | 0 (−35, 35) | 5 (−31, 40) | 47 (−10, 104) | −5 (−57, 46) | 6 (−48, 60) |
| Smoking status | ||||||
| Never smoked | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Former smoker | 68 (35, 102) | 35 (2, 68) | 42 (8, 75) | −58 (−106, −11) | 7 (−32, 46) | 12 (−27, 51) |
| Current smoker | 128 (82, 174) | 83 (45, 121) | 79 (41, 118) | −14 (−68, 40) | −12 (−61, 37) | −11 (−60, 39) |
Model 1, adjusted for age group and education, Model 2, adjusted for age group, education and non-ultra-processed foods consumption.
Bold denotes statistical significance (p-value <0.05).