Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T11:37:55.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Classification of main meal patterns – a latent class approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2012

Wei C. Wang*
Affiliation:
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC3125, Australia
Anthony Worsley
Affiliation:
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC3125, Australia
Victoria Hodgson
Affiliation:
The Clever Stuff Market Research Private Limited, Sydney Australia, Suite 107, 59 Marlborough Street, Surry Hills, NSW2010, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: W. C. Wang, fax +61 3 9244 6017, email wei.wang@deakin.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relatively little examination of the meals that are prepared in households has been conducted, despite their well-defined properties and widespread community interest in their preparation. The purpose of the present study was to identify the patterns of main meal preparation among Australian adult household meal preparers aged 44 years and younger and 45 years and over, and the relationships between these patterns and likely socio-demographic and psychological predictors. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted by Meat and Livestock Australia among a representative sample of people aged 18–65 years in Australia in 2011. A total of 1076 usable questionnaires were obtained, which included categorical information about the main meal dishes that participants had prepared during the previous 6 months along with demographic information, the presence or absence of children at home, confidence in seasonal food knowledge and personal values. Latent class analysis was applied and four types of usage patterns of thirty-three popular dishes were identified for both age groups, namely, high variety, moderate variety, high protein but low beef and low variety. The meal patterns were associated differentially with the covariates between the age groups. For example, younger women were more likely to prepare a high or moderate variety of meals than younger men, while younger people who had higher levels of education were more likely to prepare high-protein but low-beef meals. Moreover, young respondents with higher BMI were less likely to prepare meals with high protein but low beef content. Among the older age group, married people were more likely to prepare a high or moderate variety of meals than people without partners. Older people who held strong universalist values were more likely to prepare a wide variety of meals with high protein but low beef content. For both age groups, people who had children living at home and those with better seasonal food knowledge were more likely to prepare a high variety of dishes. The identification of classes of meal users would enable health communication to be tailored to improve meal patterns. Moreover, the concept of meals may be useful for health promotion, because people may find it easier to change their consumption of meals rather than individual foods.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012 
Figure 0

Table 1 Personal background characteristics across age groups (Percentages or mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 1

Table 2 Prevalence of meat and vegetable dishes across age groups (Number of respondents and percentages)

Figure 2

Table 3 Criterion to assess model fit for age group-specific latent class analysis models with covariates

Figure 3

Table 4 Latent class models with covariates across age groups – probability of latent class membership and item response probabilities within each of the four classes

Figure 4

Fig. 1 Main meal dish preparation patterns across thirty-three dishes by the younger and older age groups. (A) People aged 44 years and younger (n 635). , Class 1 (36·5 %); , class 2 (42·1 %); , class 3 (12·2 %); , class 4 (9·2 %). (B) People age 45 years and older (n 441). , Class 1 (20·7 %); , class 2 (39·9 %); , class 3 (14·8 %); , class 4 (22·6 %). (A colour version of this figure can be found online at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/bjn).

Figure 5

Table 5 Estimated OR and 95 % CI between classes with covariates across age groups (Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals)