Numerous studies have shown that socio-economically disadvantaged individuals have less healthy dietary habits(Reference Giskes, Avendano and Brug1, Reference Darmon and Drewnowski2), which may contribute to a higher prevalence of obesity and consequently diet-related chronic diseases(Reference James, Nelson and Ralph3). Individuals with a lower socio-economic status (SES) tend to consume energy-dense foods more frequently, including energy-dense takeaway options, fatty meats and fried foods(Reference Darmon and Drewnowski2, Reference Galobardes, Morabia and Bernstein4–Reference Pereira, Kartashov and Ebbeling7), compared with their higher socio-economic counterparts who consume more fruit and vegetables(Reference Giskes, Avendano and Brug1, Reference Darmon and Drewnowski2). However, the mechanisms explaining the SES inequalities in dietary intake are not fully understood. Food choice is a complex process and various individual, social and environmental factors are likely to contribute to socio-economic inequalities in food intakes. It has been proposed that motives underlying food selection play a role in explaining SES variations in diet, but few studies have tested this empirically(Reference Steptoe and Wardle8–Reference Ball, Crawford and Mishra10).
Previous research conducted in Europe and the USA has revealed that the most important food choice motives among adults are taste, health, price, and convenience of purchasing and preparation(Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle11–Reference Connors, Bisogni and Sobal13). There is evidence that individuals with a low income or education place more importance on price and less importance on health in their food selection compared with their more educated or affluent counterparts(Reference Hupkens, Knibbe and Drop9, Reference Lennernas, Fjellstrom and Becker14, Reference Bowman15). Education may make individuals better able to process nutrition-related information and may socialize them to adopting healthy dietary habits. Furthermore, it has been shown that the cost of food is related to its nutritional quality, with lower priced products being nutritionally poor and energy-dense(Reference Drewnowski16). Thus, by implication, it may be more difficult for individuals with fewer financial resources to take health aspects into account in their food purchasing decisions. Nevertheless, only one previous study has examined whether various health- and non-health-related motives contribute to SES disparities in food intake. That study found that a lower fibre intake among less educated individuals was partly attributable to the higher importance they placed on familiarity and sensory appeal of the food(Reference Steptoe and Wardle8).
A limitation of earlier studies is that they focus only on the absolute importance of food-related motives. Conflicts between personally relevant motives are common in specific food choice situations, making it necessary for individuals to prioritize them(Reference Sobal, Bisogni and Devine17, Reference Sobal and Bisogni18). Price, taste and convenience can act as barriers to buying healthy food items, for example(Reference Lappalainen, Saba and Holm19). It would therefore be pertinent to explore the relative importance of each motive. Beydoun and Wang investigated the ratio of the importance of price relative to healthiness and found that low-SES individuals considered them both equally important, whereas those with a high SES put more emphasis on healthiness(Reference Beydoun and Wang20). The ratio also partly explained the SES disparities in energy, fat, sodium and sugar intake. The conflict between price and health considerations is not the only one that can arise in relation to food choice, however, and thus it would be relevant to examine all motives relative to each other. The research emphasis in the related area of personal values has long been on individuals’ value priorities (analysed by dividing respondents’ scores on a single value by their mean ratings of all values) rather than on absolute ratings(Reference Schwartz21). A similar approach could be adopted to investigate individual priorities in food choice motives, but we are not aware of any study that has done this.
The aim of the current study was to examine whether the absolute or relative importance of various food choice motives contributed to the education and income inequalities in dietary intake in a population-based sample of Finnish men and women. With respect to dietary intake, the focus was on the consumption of vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods because (i) SES disparities are most consistently observed in the consumption of vegetables/fruit(Reference Giskes, Avendano and Brug1) and (ii) energy-dense food items represent less healthy options that are typically affordable and purchased as pre-prepared food.
Methods
Participants and setting
The participants of the current study took part in two phases of the National Cardiovascular Risk Factor Survey (the FINRISK Study) conducted in 2007(Reference Vartiainen, Laatikainen and Peltonen22). The ethical committee of the National Institute for Health and Welfare and the hospital districts gave their approval of the study protocols, and all participants gave their informed consent. For the FINRISK Study 2007, a random sample of 10 000 people aged 25–74 years was drawn from the Finnish population register (representing all Finnish residents) in five geographic areas. The sample was stratified by gender, 10-year age groups and area. The first study phase took place from January to March 2007 and involved a total of 6258 individuals (a response rate of 63 %). The participants received by mail an invitation to undergo a health examination, together with a self-administered health questionnaire that yielded information on sociodemographic factors, health behaviour, and medical and disease history. They filled in the questionnaire at home and brought it with them when they came to the health centre for the examination.
All of the individuals who participated in the first study phase (n 6258) were invited to continue in the second phase conducted from April to June 2007, the aim of which was to investigate the dietary, lifestyle and genetic determinants of obesity and metabolic syndrome (the DILGOM sub-study). The response rate for this phase was 80 % (2325 men and 2699 women). It comprised a further health examination at the health centre during which research nurses measured the weight and height of the participants and the participants completed a 132-item FFQ and questionnaires covering psychosocial (e.g. food choice motives) and lifestyle (e.g. physical activity) factors.
The sample for the present study consisted of all 25–64-year-old men (n 1691) and women (n 2059; i.e. working-age population) who participated in both study phases. Information on sociodemographic factors (years of education, gross household income, marital status and presence of children in the household) was derived from the first phase, whereas information related to other variables (food choice motives, dietary intake, weight, height and physical activity) was based on the second phase.
Measures
Food choice motives
Food choice motives were measured with a shortened version of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ)(Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle11). The original FCQ includes thirty-six items and is intended to measure nine different motivational dimensions underlying the selection of food (health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concern). Respondents are asked to endorse the statement ‘It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…’ for each item, on a four-point scale (ranging from 1 = not at all important to 4 = very important). However, the factor structure of the FCQ has not been well replicated in other studies(Reference Eertmans, Victoir and Notelaers23, Reference Fotopoulos, Krystallis and Vassallo24), and Fotopoulos et al. suggest reducing the number of motivational dimensions and using fewer items to measure each one(Reference Fotopoulos, Krystallis and Vassallo24). We excluded thirteen items that had content overlap with other items, and added three items measuring ethical/political aspects of food purchasing (items 20, 22 and 26 in Appendix), which are currently relevant in the Finnish context. Confirmatory factor analysis implied that the original nine-factor structure had a poor fit with the data (χ 2 = 3781·08, df = 265, P < 0·001; CFI (comparative fit index) = 0·89; TLI (Tucker–Lewis index) = 0·87; RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = 0·06; SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) = 0·06) according to cut-off points suggested by Hu and Bentler(Reference Hu and Bentler25). A series of exploratory factor analyses (maximum likelihood extraction with oblimin with Kaiser normalization oblique rotation) clearly supported the four-factor structure (the scree plot(Reference Cattell26) indicated that adding a fifth or more factors would not significantly increase the total variance explained in the items). These four factors were interpreted as health, pleasure, convenience and ethicality (Appendix). Three items did not clearly load on any of the factors (all loadings <0·35). We excluded one of them (‘is high in protein’) from the present analyses and analysed the other two as separate variables because they were the only items measuring the familiarity (‘is what I usually eat’) and price (‘is cheap’) dimensions of the original FCQ. All in all, we measured the health dimension on eight items, convenience on three items, pleasure on five items, ethicality on seven items and both familiarity and price on one item.
We derived the absolute importance of health, pleasure, convenience and ethicality by calculating the mean score of the items belonging to the respective factors, whereas the participant’s rating of price and familiarity reflected the absolute importance of these two motives. We computed the relative importance of each motive by dividing the participant's absolute rating of it by his/her mean score on all twenty-five motive items. The same method has been used to calculate individuals’ value priorities in studies on personal values(Reference Verkasalo, Tuomivaara and Lindeman27, Reference Schwartz and Rubel28).
Consumption of vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods
Vegetable/fruit and energy-dense food consumption was assessed with the validated FFQ, which inquires into the average use frequencies of 132 food items common in the current Finnish diet during the previous 12 months(Reference Männistö, Virtanen and Mikkonen29, Reference Paalanen, Männistö and Virtanen30). There are nine possible frequency categories for all of the items, ranging from never or seldom to more than six times a day. The portion size was fixed for each one and if possible specified in natural units (e.g. glass, slice). The average intakes of fresh vegetables/fruit (sixteen items, potatoes were not included) and energy-dense foods (eight items including savoury pasties, pizza, hamburgers, fried potatoes, sausages and mayonnaise salads) were the food consumption variables of interest in the present analyses. We used the Finnish national food composition database (Fineli) of the National Institute for Health and Welfare to calculate the average daily consumption of vegetables (g), fruit (g) and energy-dense foods (g) and total energy intake (kJ) from the FFQ(Reference Reinivuo, Hirvonen and Ovaskainen31).
Sociodemographic factors
Self-reported total years of schooling were used to measure education on a continuous scale. Participants were asked to report their previous year's gross household income on a nine-point scale ranging from less than €10 000 to more than €80 000. Household income was subsequently divided by the weighted sum of the number of household adult and child members (a weight of 1·0 was given for the first adult of the household, 0·7 for all other adults and 0·5 for children under the age of 17 years), as recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(32).
Age, marital status, having children in the household, BMI and physical activity were included as covariates in the analyses. Age was used as a continuous variable and marital status was dichotomized into married/cohabiting v. single. Households were categorized into those with children under the age of 17 years and those without children. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms (measured to the nearest 100 g in light clothing without shoes) divided by the square of height in metres (measured to the nearest 0·5 cm). Two questions derived from the validated short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)(Reference Craig, Marshall and Sjostrom33) were used to assess the number of days during the previous week on which the participants engaged in vigorous (e.g. running or lifting heavy weights) or moderate (e.g. light jogging) physical activity for at least 10 min.
Statistical methods
We analysed the bivariate associations between the study variables by means of age-adjusted partial Pearson's correlations using the SPSS statistical software package version 15·0. The next stage was to test the hypothesized mediation model between SES, food choice motives and dietary intake (Fig. 1) by means of structural equation modelling and using Mplus statistical software version 6·0(Reference Muthen and Muthen34). We estimated the mediation model separately for all SES indicators (education and income), the food choice motives (absolute and relative) and the food consumption variables (intake of vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods). The models were adjusted for gender, age, marital status, having children in the household, BMI, physical activity and total energy intake. However in order to avoid over-adjustment, we did not adjust the analyses of energy-dense foods for energy intake because such foods have high energy content by definition. We used Mplus(Reference Muthen and Muthen34) to derive the total, direct and indirect (through each absolute and relative food choice motive) effects of the SES indicators on the food consumption variables and their respective standard errors (see Fig. 1). Maximum likelihood robust (MLR) was used as an estimation method given that the distributions of the study variables deviated from normality to some extent. MLR produces standard errors (by means of a sandwich estimator) and a χ 2 test statistic that are robust for non-normality(Reference Muthen and Muthen34). We did not evaluate the model fit because the estimated mediation models had zero degrees of freedom and thus, by definition, fitted the data perfectly. The correlations and descriptive characteristics of the study sample are shown by gender because men and women differ considerably with respect to dietary intake and motives for food choices(Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle11, Reference Westenhoefer35). However, we carried out multi-group analyses in order to formally test gender differences related to the mediation models: the χ 2 statistic of the constrained models (the regression paths a, b and c shown in Fig. 1 were forced to be similar between genders) was compared with that of the unconstrained models (the three paths were allowed to vary freely) using χ 2 difference tests (taking into account the MLR scaling-correction factor). If the χ 2 statistic of the constrained model was significantly different from that of the unconstrained model, the gender-stratified total, direct and indirect effects are shown. We used an α level of P < 0·01 instead of P < 0·05, given the sensitivity of the χ 2 difference test to sample size that makes small differences statistically significant in large samples(Reference Cheung and Rensvold36).
The mediation model used to estimate the effects of socio-economic indicators on dietary intake. The model was estimated separately for each socio-economic indicator (education and income), absolute and relative food choice motive and food consumption variable (vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods). All models were adjusted for age, gender, marital status, children in the household, BMI and physical activity. The models for vegetables/fruit were also adjusted for total energy intake. Rectangles represent the measured variables and arrows the regression paths between the variables. a = Direct effect of socio-economic indicator on food choice motive; b = direct effect of food choice motive on dietary intake; c = direct effect of socio-economic indicator on dietary intake; a × b = indirect effect of the socio-economic indicator on dietary intake through the food choice motive. Total effect of the socio-economic indicator on dietary intake = direct effect c + indirect effect a × b
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of the study sample. Both men and women rated health and pleasure as the two most important food choice motives, followed by convenience and price, irrespective of whether absolute or relative motives were analysed. Women placed more importance on health, pleasure, ethicality, convenience and price in their daily food choice than men, whereas men scored more highly on familiarity (Table 1). In contrast, health and familiarity were the only relative motives showing significant gender differences.
Characteristics of the study participants by gender: sub-sample of men and women aged 25–64 years, FINRISK Study 2007
Mean values were significantly different from those of women (ANOVA): *P < 0·05.
†Values vary from 1 to 4.
‡Values vary from 0·27 to 2·86.
All six absolute food choice motives correlated positively with each other, the strongest correlation being between health and ethicality (r = 0·55 in men and r = 0·48 in women; Table 2). When the relative importance of the motives was analysed, the associations changed substantially in both genders: health, pleasure and ethicality correlated negatively with almost all of the other motives, whereas convenience, familiarity and price were positively related. However, each relative motive had a positive and high correlation with its absolute counterpart, ranging from 0·67 to 0·87 among men and from 0·60 to 0·92 among women.
Age-adjusted correlations between absolute and relative food choice motives by gender: sub-sample of men and women aged 25–64 years, FINRISK Study 2007
Men (n 1616–1686) are below and women (n 1946–2047) are above the diagonal.
Significance of correlation: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
As the age-adjusted correlation coefficients in Table 3 show, participants with a higher education and income rated price and familiarity as less important in both absolute and relative terms. A minor gender difference was observed here: the relationship between education and price was significant only among women. A higher income was related to the greater relative importance of health considerations in food selection. On the relative level, all of the motives were significantly associated with the food consumption variables: pleasure, convenience, price and familiarity were associated with a lower consumption of vegetables/fruit and a higher consumption of energy-dense foods, whereas the opposite was the case with health and ethicality (Table 3). On the absolute level, all of the motives except health and ethicality correlated weakly with vegetable/fruit and energy-dense food intake (r ≤ |0·10|).
Age-adjusted correlations between absolute and relative food choice motives, socio-economic indicators and food consumption variables by gender: sub-sample of men and women aged 25–64 years, FINRISK Study 2007
Significance of correlation: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
†The food consumption variables were square-root transformed in order to improve the normality of the distributions.
Tables 4 and 5 show the standardized total, direct and indirect effects of respectively education and income on vegetable/fruit and energy-dense food intake from the mediation models. Education (total effect β = 0·12, P < 0·001) and income (total effect β = 0·12, P < 0·001) were related to a higher consumption of vegetables/fruit, whereas education had an inverse association with energy-dense food intake (total effect β = −0·09, P < 0·001). The absolute importance of price, familiarity and ethicality significantly mediated the effects of the SES indicators on the intake of vegetables/fruit and/or energy-dense foods, but all of these indirect effects were very small in magnitude (β ≤ |0·010|). The sizes of the indirect effects were larger in the models including relative motives, and health, price and familiarity partly attenuated the associations between the SES indicators and the food consumption variables. Multi-group analyses indicated significant (P ≤ 0·01) gender differences in the associations between education, price and food consumption variables: the indirect effects of education through price (absolute and relative importance) on vegetable/fruit and energy-dense food intake were significant only among women (Table 4).
Results from the structural equation models: standardized total, direct and indirect (through food choice motives) effects of education on the consumption of vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods among a sub-sample of men and women aged 25–64 years, FINRISK Study 2007
Significance of coefficient: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
†Total effect = direct effect + indirect effect.
‡Gender-stratified results are shown because the multi-group analyses indicated significant (P ≤ 0·01) gender differences in the associations between education, price and the food consumption variables.
§The food consumption variables were square-root transformed in order to improve the normality of the distributions.
Results from the structural equation models: standardized total, direct and indirect (through food choice motives) effects of income on the consumption of vegetables/fruit and energy-dense foods among a sub-sample of men and women aged 25–64 years, FINRISK Study 2007
Significance of coefficient: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01, ***P < 0·001.
†Total effect = direct effect + indirect effect.
‡The food consumption variables were square-root transformed in order to improve the normality of the distributions.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to increase understanding of the underlying reasons for SES inequalities in dietary intake. We concentrated on the role of food choice motives and, more specifically, considered whether individuals’ motive priorities (i.e. relative motives) should be analysed rather than their absolute ratings of single motives (i.e. absolute motives). We identified six distinctive food choice motives, including health, pleasure, convenience, price, familiarity and ethicality. Participants with low levels of education and income placed more importance on price and familiarity of the food than their more educated and affluent counterparts in both absolute and relative terms. A minor gender difference was that education was associated with price motive (absolute and relative) only among women. Furthermore, a higher income was related to the greater relative importance of health considerations in both genders. The relative rather than the absolute importance of price, health and familiarity partly explained the SES gradient in the intake of vegetables/fruit and/or energy-dense foods.
The well-established positive relationship between SES and vegetable/fruit consumption(Reference Giskes, Avendano and Brug1, Reference Darmon and Drewnowski2) was replicated in the present study with respect to both educational attainment and household income. In contrast, only education showed a negative association with energy-dense food intake, which is consistent with results from a recent study on SES differences in takeaway food consumption(Reference Miura, Giskes and Turrell5). The finding that the importance of price, familiarity and health motives varied among the SES groups supports the results of previous studies on this issue(Reference Steptoe and Wardle8–Reference Ball, Crawford and Mishra10, Reference Lennernas, Fjellstrom and Becker14, Reference Bowman15), although for the health motive we observed this only on the relative level. As expected, the relationship between income and price was the strongest of all the associations between the motives and the SES indicators. It is reasonable for individuals with fewer financial resources to emphasize price in their food purchasing decisions and there is evidence that price is a barrier to purchasing healthy food items among socio-economically disadvantaged groups(Reference Giskes, Turrell and Patterson37–Reference Waterlander, de Mul and Schuit40). The greater importance attached to familiarity among individuals with lower levels of education and income could result in a more monotonous dietary intake. Trying new food may, for example, represent a risk of waste that less affluent individuals cannot afford to take(Reference Barker, Lawrence and Skinner41). Moreover, a higher education may increase the willingness to experiment with new foods, thereby leading to a lower appreciation of food-related traditions and familiar dietary practices(Reference Inglis, Ball and Crawford39). The finding that considerations related to weight control and health were relatively more salient to individuals with higher incomes could, to some extent, reflect the fact that more affluent individuals have the financial freedom to take health aspects into account in their food purchasing, given the higher cost of healthy foods(Reference Drewnowski16).
The present study is the first one to show that the relative importance of price, health and familiarity motives contributes to SES disparities in the consumption of vegetables/fruit and/or energy-dense foods. The mediated effects of the absolute motives were very small, however, although there were some significant indirect effects. The difference between the absolute and relative price and familiarity motives can be attributed to the fact that they were associated with a lower vegetable/fruit intake and a higher energy-dense food intake on the relative level, whereas on the absolute level their associations with these food consumption variables were weak. Similarly, a previous study (analysing motives in absolute terms) found that education groups differed in the importance they placed on four motives (price, familiarity, mood control and sensory appeal), but only familiarity contributed to the educational gradient in total fibre and fruit/vegetable intake(Reference Steptoe and Wardle8). The findings from the present study extend those obtained by Beydoun and Wang concerning the importance of price relative to healthiness as a contributor to SES disparities in diet(Reference Beydoun and Wang20) in indicating a need to analyse other food choice motives relative to each other. It should be noted, however, that the relative motives explained only part of the SES variations in dietary intake, implying that other factors are also relevant. Factors related to the food environment, such as access and availability, have recently attracted a lot of research interest and poorer access to healthy foods has been observed in socio-economically deprived areas in the USA(Reference Beaulac, Kristjansson and Cummins42). For other high-income countries including the UK, Canada and Australia, the evidence for poorer access to healthy foods in disadvantaged areas is equivocal(Reference Beaulac, Kristjansson and Cummins42, Reference Macintyre43).
Another discrepancy between absolute and relative motives was that all of the absolute motives correlated positively with each other, in accordance with findings reported in previous studies(Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle11, Reference Pollard, Steptoe and Wardle44), but convenience, familiarity and price were the only relative ones that were positively associated. The occurrence of negative as well as positive correlations on the relative level is understandable in that each motive was divided by the individual mean ratings across all motives in order to determine its relative importance. People commonly prioritize food choice motives, given that it is rare for all personally important motives to be fully satisfied in any particular eating situation(Reference Sobal, Bisogni and Devine17, Reference Sobal and Bisogni18), and relative motive variables produce the prioritizing mathematically. One problem related to relative motives is that they do not capture individual differences in the level of involvement with food, some consumers being enthusiastic about every aspect of it and others being extremely uninvolved(Reference Grunert, Baadsggaard and Larsen45). However, analysing motive priorities instead of absolute ratings of single motives may better reflect the complexity of the motive structure in that relatively unimportant motives might not affect food choices even though their absolute importance is high(Reference Scheibehenne, Miesler and Todd46).
One of the strengths of the current study was that we used a large population-based sample incorporating detailed information on sociodemographic factors, dietary habits and food choice motives in order to enhance understanding of SES inequalities in dietary intake. Applying structural equation modelling allowed us to explicitly test the direct and indirect effects among the variables of interest, and we took a novel analytical approach in terms of food choice motives. There are also limitations that should be taken into account in interpreting the results, however. The analyses were based on cross-sectional data, which does not allow for the ascertainment of causality or its direction. Nevertheless, SES is more likely to have an influence on food intake and food choice motives than vice versa. In addition, motivational factors are often considered to be determinants of behaviour rather than consequences. Assessing food consumption on a self-report FFQ allowed us to estimate longer-term intake, but all self-report dietary assessment methods are vulnerable to under- and over-reporting(Reference Maurer, Taren and Teixeira47). In order to take account of this, we adjusted the analyses for total energy intake and for several variables known to be related to reporting bias(Reference Paalanen, Männistö and Virtanen30, Reference Hirvonen, Männistö and Roos48). We measured two food choice motives, price and familiarity, on only one item (‘is cheap’ and ‘is what I usually eat’, respectively). This may not capture their nature comprehensively, but the associations were still consistent with those reported in previous studies assessing price and familiarity on more items(Reference Steptoe and Wardle8, Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle11). The present sample was initially representative of the Finnish population, but the attrition rate was relatively high due to the demanding study protocol. Non-participant analyses conducted in the context of previous FINRISK studies have shown that non-participants are more likely to have a low SES(Reference Harald, Salomaa and Jousilahti49) and this could have made our estimates more conservative.
Conclusions
The present results suggest that the less healthy dietary habits among individuals with a low SES are partly attributable to the higher priority they place on price and familiarity and the lower priority they give to health motives. Although differences between SES groups in the importance of food price and healthfulness have frequently been observed, the current findings imply that familiarity is another relevant motive that deserves further research. Furthermore, it is useful to analyse individuals’ motive priorities rather than their absolute ratings of single motives, given that they may better reflect the complexity of the motive structure. On the practical level, reducing the price of healthy food could be an effective strategy for improving the diets of low-SES groups. A recent study conducted in real-life settings provided evidence that giving price discounts on healthier foods increased their purchasing irrespective of education or income level(Reference Blakely, Ni Mhurchu and Jiang50). However, as Ni Mhurchu(Reference Ni Mhurchu51) notes, more research is needed in order to evaluate the exact effects of a range of pricing strategies on food consumption, health and inequalities.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant numbers 118139, 136895 and 141005) and the Finnish Doctoral Program for Social Sciences (SOVAKO). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. H.K., S.M. and A.H. were involved in data collection. H.K. conceptualized the research questions, conducted statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. S.S.-L., K.S., S.M. and A.H. helped to draft the manuscript and advised on issues related to socio-economic factors, food choice motives and dietary intake. All authors were involved in the planning of the study and read and approved the final manuscript.
The four-factor structure of the shortened Food Choice Questionnaire
