Comparison of obesity-related perceptions, self-reported health and weight status, self-reported nutrition behaviours, nutrition label reading behaviours, and neighbourhood food environment among respondents by community economic hardship status, the Los Angeles County Food and Nutrition Field Survey, 2013*
| Characteristics | Weighted prevalence or mean | p value¶ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | ‘Low economic hardship’† | ‘Intermediate economic hardship’‡ | ‘High economic hardship’§ | ||
| % (n) | 100 (1007) | 26.6 (198) | 46.1 (320) | 27.3 (489) | |
| Obesity-related perceptions, % (n) | |||||
| Obesity among Los Angeles County adults is a very serious problem | <0.05** | ||||
| Believes to be a very serious problem | 60.7 (620) | 53.8 (99) | 61.2 (188) | 66.4 (333) | |
| Does not believe to be a very serious problem | 39.3 (361) | 46.2 (89) | 38.8 (126) | 33.6 (146) | |
| Obesity among Los Angeles County children is a very serious problem, % (n) | <0.01**,†† | ||||
| Believes to be a very serious problem | 61.4 (625) | 52.1 (98) | 63.3 (194) | 67.3 (333) | |
| Does not believe to be a very serious problem | 38.6 (359) | 47.9 (91) | 36.8 (115) | 32.7 (153) | |
| Factors that play a larger role in determining an individual's obesity status, % (n) | – | ||||
| Individual factors (eg, genetics) | 10.8 (93) | 12.8 (23) | 11.3 (35) | 8.0 (35) | |
| Environmental factors (eg, access) | 12.2 (120) | 12.1 (24) | 12.8 (42) | 11.3 (54) | |
| Both individual and environmental factors | 77.0 (774) | 75.1 (148) | 75.9 (236) | 80.7 (390) | |
| Self-reported health and weight status, % (n) | |||||
| Self-reported health status | <0.001**,‡‡ | ||||
| Excellent | 18.9 (171) | 27.5 (55) | 19.6 (59) | 9.2 (57) | |
| Very good/good | 63.6 (608) | 62.8 (122) | 66.9 (212) | 58.8 (274) | |
| Fair/poor | 17.5 (214) | 9.6 (20) | 13.5 (43) | 32.0 (151) | |
| Perceived weight status, % (n) | <0.01**,†† | ||||
| Overweight/obese | 29.8 (298) | 18.0 (35) | 32.0 (96) | 37.6 (167) | |
| Normal/underweight | 70.2 (692) | 82.0 (162) | 68.0 (220) | 62.4 (310) | |
| Self-reported nutrition behaviours, mean (SE) | |||||
| Fruit and vegetable consumption | 2.35 (0.05) | 2.54 (0.10) | 2.34 (0.07) | 2.18 (0.08) | – |
| Non-diet soda consumption | 1.21 (0.10) | 0.92 (0.15) | 1.15 (0.17) | 1.60 (0.17) | – |
| Fast-food restaurant meal consumption | 1.11 (0.05) | 0.87 (0.09) | 1.10 (0.08) | 1.30 (1.09) | <0.001**,††,‡‡ |
| Sit-down restaurant meal consumption | 1.46 (0.07) | 2.13 (0.17) | 1.35 (0.09) | 1.00 (0.08) | <0.001**,††,‡‡ |
| Reading nutrition labelling when grocery shopping, % (n) | |||||
| Frequency reviewing nutritional and calorie information posted on food packages before making food selection decisions | – | ||||
| All/most of the time | 55.5 (518) | 57.3 (113) | 56.2 (174) | 52.3 (231) | |
| Some/none of the time | 44.5 (477) | 42.7 (83) | 43.8 (144) | 47.7 (250) | |
| Neighbourhood food environment, % (n) | |||||
| Fresh fruits and vegetable access | <0.001**,††,‡‡ | ||||
| Very easy to find | 60.0 (518) | 72.9 (144) | 59.8 (185) | 47.7 (189) | |
| Not very easy to find | 40.0 (474) | 27.1 (52) | 40.3 (131) | 52.3 (291) | |
| Supermarkets and grocery store access, % (n) | <0.001**,††,‡‡ | ||||
| Very easy to find | 75.1 (702) | 88.1 (172) | 74.3 (237) | 64.0 (293) | |
| Not very easy to find | 24.9 (300) | 11.9 (24) | 25.7 (82) | 36.0 (194) | |
| Fresh and freely available drinking water access in public spaces, % (n) | – | ||||
| Very easy to find | 25.9 (227) | 25.9 (46) | 28.2 (84) | 21.9 (97) | |
| Not very easy to find | 74.2 (713) | 74.1 (133) | 71.9 (214) | 78.1 (366) | |
| Fast food restaurant access, % (n) | <0.001**,†† | ||||
| Very easy to find | 84.8 (863) | 74.6 (148) | 87.6 (279) | 90.2 (436) | |
| Not very easy to find | 15.2 (139) | 25.5 (50) | 12.4 (39) | 9.8 (50) | |
Number of cases and percentage may not add up to the total or 100%, respectively, due to rounding and missing information. Reported n's are unweighted.
*‘Economic hardship’ rankings based on internally developed Los Angeles County Department of Public Health economic hardship index for selected places (more than 10 000 persons) and Los Angeles City Council Districts, 2008–2012.
†Includes the top 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.
‡Includes the middle 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.
§Includes the bottom 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.
¶χ2 differences observed between the three economic hardship groups: ‘low economic hardship’, ‘intermediate economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’.
**χ2 differences observed between ‘low economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’ groups (p<0.05).
††χ2 differences observed between ‘low economic hardship’ and ‘intermediate economic hardship’ (p<0.05).
‡‡χ2 differences observed between ‘intermediate economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’ (p<0.05).