TABLE 5.
Sociodemographic and behavioral correlates of functional NFt understanding (n = 21,586)1
| β | 95% CI | P value2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Country | |||
| Australia vs. Canada | −0.31 | −0.40, −0.21 | <0.0001* |
| Australia vs. Mexico | 0.46 | 0.36, 0.57 | <0.0001* |
| Australia vs. United Kingdom | −0.06 | −0.15, 0.03 | 0.1957 |
| Australia vs. United States | −0.38 | −0.48, −0.29 | <0.0001* |
| Canada vs. Mexico | 0.77 | 0.67, 0.87 | <0.0001* |
| Canada vs. United Kingdom | 0.25 | 0.15, 0.34 | <0.0001* |
| Canada vs. United States | −0.08 | −0.17, 0.02 | 0.1134 |
| United Kingdom vs. Mexico | 0.52 | 0.43, 0.62 | <0.0001* |
| United Kingdom vs. United States | −0.32 | −0.42, −0.23 | <0.0001* |
| United States vs. Mexico | 0.84 | 0.75, 0.95 | <0.0001* |
| Age | −0.004 | −0.006, −0.002 | <0.0001* |
| Sex at birth | |||
| Female vs. male | 0.23 | 0.17, 0.29 | <0.0001* |
| Ethnicity3 | |||
| Majority vs. minority | 0.63 | 0.55, 0.72 | <0.0001* |
| Education level4 | |||
| Medium vs. low | 0.36 | 0.28, 0.43 | <0.0001* |
| High vs. low | 0.52 | 0.44, 0.58 | <0.0001* |
| High vs. medium | 0.16 | 0.80, 0.23 | <0.0001* |
| Income adequacy | 0.00 | −0.02, 0.03 | 0.8572 |
| BMI | |||
| Missing vs. <18.5 | −0.72 | −0.92, −0.53 | <0.0001* |
| Missing vs. 18.5–24.9 | −0.69 | −0.79, −0.59 | <0.0001* |
| Missing vs. 25–29.9 | −0.70 | −0.80, −0.60 | <0.0001* |
| Missing vs. ≥30 | −0.80 | −0.90, −0.69 | <0.0001* |
| ≥30 vs. <18.5 | 0.07 | −0.11, 0.26 | 0.4494 |
| ≥30 vs. 18.5–24.9 | 0.10 | 0.02, 0.19 | 0.0148* |
| ≥30 vs. 25–29.9 | 0.09 | 0.01, 0.18 | 0.0297* |
| 25–29.9 vs. 18.5–24.9 | 0.01 | −0.07, 0.08 | 0.8023 |
| 25–29.9 vs. <18.5 | −0.02 | −0.21, 0.16 | 0.8186 |
| <18.5 vs. 18.5–24.9 | 0.03 | −0.15, 0.21 | 0.7349 |
| Food shopping role | |||
| Primary shopper vs. not primary shopper | −0.34 | −0.48, −0.21 | <0.0001* |
| Primary shopper vs. share equally with others | −0.24 | −0.31, −0.17 | <0.0001* |
| Not primary shopper vs. share equally with others | −0.10 | −0.25, 0.04 | 0.1725 |
| Dietary practices | |||
| ≥1 dietary practices (i.e., vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, religious practices) vs. no specific dietary practices | −0.45 | −0.54, −0.36 | <0.0001* |
| Dietary efforts score5 | −0.10 | −0.11, −0.09 | <0.0001* |
| FoodProK score5, 6 | 0.38 | 0.36, 0.40 | <0.0001* |
| Self-reported NFt understanding | 0.19 | 0.16, 0.22 | <0.0001* |
Data presented have been weighted. FoodProK, Food Processing Knowledge; NFt, Nutrition Facts table.
Variables marked with an asterisk are significant (P < 0.05) after post hoc adjustment using Benjamini–Hochberg procedure.
“Majority” ethnicity refers to respondents who identified as “white,” “predominantly English-speaking,” or “non-Indigenous” based on country-specific ethnic identity questions.
“Low” education refers to high school completion or lower, “medium” education refers to some post–secondary school qualifications including some university, and “high” refers to respondents who received a university degree or higher.
The dietary efforts score reflects consumers’ efforts to consume more or less of the following nutrient categories: trans fats, sugar/added sugars, salt/sodium, calories, and processed foods. On a scale of 0–10, 0 represents “consume less” responses to all categories, 10 represents “consume more” responses to all categories, and the range in between reflects all other response combinations.
The FoodProK score reflects consumers’ functional nutrition knowledge based on level of food processing. On a scale of 0–8, scores reflect whether respondents correctly ordered foods according to the NOVA classification for level of processing, with higher scores reflecting higher functional nutrition knowledge.