Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Interventions and public health nutrition

Attitudes toward healthy eating: a mediator of the educational level–diet relationship

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 67, pages 808–814 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

BACKGROUNG/OBJECTIVES:

A higher educational level is associated with a healthier diet. The goal of this study was to establish whether this association is mediated by attitudes toward healthy eating.

SUBJECTS/METHODS:

The cross-sectional MONA LISA-NUT study was performed in 2005–2007 on adults aged 35–64 years from northern and north-eastern France. Diet quality was assessed on the basis of a 3-day food record and a validated score based on French national dietary guidelines. Specific questions investigated attitudes toward healthy eating. Multivariate analyses were used to quantify the proportion of the educational level–diet relationship that was mediated by attitudes toward healthy eating.

RESULTS:

Among the 1631 subjects, favourable attitudes toward healthy eating were associated with both higher educational level and diet quality. In the mediation analysis, ‘organic food consumption’ explained 14% (95% confidence interval (8;24)) of the educational level–diet relationship and ‘attention paid to health when buying food’ explained 9% (3;16). In contrast, ‘attention to food choice’, ‘searching for information about food’ and ‘perceived role of eating’ were not mediators of the association between educational level and diet. In a multivariate model, the attitude items together accounted for 25% (10;45) of the relationship. The mediation was more pronounced in women than in men (37% (15;54) vs 16% (1;27), respectively) and was significant for consumption of fruits and vegetables (23% (13;37)), whole-grain food (32% (15;58)) and seafood (22% (9;55)).

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results suggest that poor attitudes toward healthy eating in groups with low socioeconomic status constitute an additional factor (along with cost constraints) in the choice of unhealthy foods.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.

  2. Estaquio C, Kesse-Guyot E, Deschamps V, Bertrais S, Dauchet L, Galan P et al. Adherence to the French Programme National Nutrition Santé Guideline Score is associated with better nutrient intake and nutritional status. J Am Diet Assoc 2009; 109: 1031–1041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Darmon N, Drewnowski A . Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr 2008; 87: 1107–1117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wyndels K, Dallongeville J, Simon C, Bongard V, Wagner A, Ruidavets J-B et al. Regional factors interact with educational and income tax levels to influence food intake in France. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011; 65: 1067–1075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 2005; 294: 2879–2888.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aggarwal A, Monsivais P, Cook AJ, Drewnowski A . Does diet cost mediate the relation between socioeconomic position and diet quality? Eur J Clin Nutr 2011; 65: 1059–1066.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Diez-Roux AV, Nieto FJ, Caulfield L, Tyroler HA, Watson RL, Szklo M . Neighbourhood differences in diet: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 55–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Morland K, Wing S, Roux AD . The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 1761–1768.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Turrell G, Hewitt B, Patterson C, Oldenburg B . Measuring socio-economic position in dietary research: Is choice of socio-economic indicator important? Public Health Nutr 2003; 6: 191–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wardle J, Steptoe A . Socioeconomic differences in attitudes and beliefs about healthy lifestyles. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57: 440–443.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Turrell G, Kavanagh AM . Socio-economic pathways to diet: modelling the association between socio-economic position and food purchasing behaviour. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9: 375–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ball K, Crawford D, Mishra G . Socio-economic inequalities in women’s fruit and vegetable intakes: a multilevel study of individual, social and environmental mediators. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9: 623–630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cullen KW, Lara KM, de Moor C . Familial concordance of dietary fat practices and intake. Fam Community Health 2002; 25: 65–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Groth MV, Fagt S, Brøndsted L . Social determinants of dietary habits in Denmark. Eur J Clin Nutr 2001; 55: 959–966.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Irala-Estévez JD, Groth M, Johansson L, Oltersdorf U, Prättälä R, Martínez-González MA . A systematic review of socio-economic differences in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000; 54: 706–714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Roos E, Prättälä R, Lahelma E, Kleemola P, Pietinen P . Modern and healthy?: socioeconomic differences in the quality of diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50: 753–760.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dallongeville J, Marécaux N, Cottel D, Bingham A, Amouyel P . Association between nutrition knowledge and nutritional intake in middle-aged men from Northern France. Public Health Nutr 2001; 4: 27–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kraus SJ . Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995; 21: 58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hupkens CLH, Knibbe RA, Drop MJ . Social class differences in food consumption: the explanatory value of permissiveness and health and cost considerations. Eur J Public Health 2005; 10: 108–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Traill WB, Chambers SA, Butler L . Attitudinal and demographic determinants of diet quality and implications for policy targeting. J Hum Nutr Diet 2012; 25: 87–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A, Nillapun M, Jonwutiwes K, Bellisle F . Gender differences in food choice: the contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Ann Behav Med 2004; 27: 107–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrières J, Bongard V, Dallongeville J, Arveiler D, Cottel D, Haas B et al. Trends in plasma lipids, lipoproteins and dyslipidaemias in French adults, 1996–2007. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2009; 102: 293–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wagner A, Sadoun A, Dallongeville J, Ferrières J, Amouyel P, Ruidavets J-B et al. High blood pressure prevalence and control in a middle-aged French population and their associated factors: the MONA LISA study. J. Hypertens 2011; 29: 43–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Willett W . Nutritional Epidemiology. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Cade J, Thompson R, Burley V, Warm D . Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires — a review. Public Health Nutr 2002; 5: 567–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. CIQUAL AFSSA/ANSES. French Food Composition Table. 2008: http://www.anses.fr/TableCIQUAL/ (Accessed in November 2010).

  27. Black AE, Coward WA, Cole TJ, Prentice AM . Human energy expenditure in affluent societies: an analysis of 574 doubly-labelled water measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50: 72–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pereira MA, FitzerGerald SJ, Gregg EW, Joswiak ML, Ryan WJ, Suminski RR et al. A collection of Physical Activity Questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: S1–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roeykens J, Rogers R, Meeusen R, Magnus L, Borms J, de Meirleir K . Validity and reliability in a Flemish population of the WHO–MONICA Optional Study of Physical Activity Questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 1071–1075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Leon AS, Jacobs DR Jr, Montoye HJ, Sallis JF et al. Compendium of physical activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: 71–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baron RM, Kenny DA . The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51: 1173–1182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Insee, Définitions et méthodes, PCS 2003, Niveau 1, Liste des catégories socioprofessionnelles agrégées. http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/default.asp?page=nomenclatures/pcs2003/liste_n1.htm (Accessed in May 2012).

  33. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2010.

  34. Canty A, Ripley BD . Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions 2013.

  35. Davison AC, Hinkley DV . Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Darmon N, Ferguson EL, Briend A . A cost constraint alone has adverse effects on food selection and nutrient density: an analysis of human diets by linear programming. J Nutr 2002; 132: 3764–3771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Drewnowski A, Darmon N . Food choices and diet costs: an economic analysis. J Nutr 2005; 135: 900–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Beydoun MA, Wang Y . How do socio-economic status, perceived economic barriers and nutritional benefits affect quality of dietary intake among US adults? Eur J Clin Nutr 2007; 62: 303–313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Zanoli R, Naspetti S . Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: a means-end approach. Br Food J 2002; 104: 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bourdieu P . Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Barker M, Lawrence WT, Skinner TC, Haslam CO, Robinson SM, Inskip HM et al. Constraints on food choices of women in the UK with lower educational attainment. Public Health Nutr 2008; 11: 1229–1237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miura K, Giskes K, Turrell G . Contribution of take-out food consumption to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake: a mediation analysis. J Am Diet Assoc 2011; 111: 1556–1562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the nurses, physicians, dieticians, computer scientists and secretarial staff variously in Lille, Strasbourg, Toulouse, the Centre de Médecine Préventive de Lille, the Laboratoire d’Analyses Génomiques, the Service de Biologie Spécialisée de l’Institut Pasteur de Lille, the Centre de Santé de la MGEN de Strasbourg, the Unité de Coordination de la Biologie des Essais Cliniques des Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, the Department of Cardiology of the Toulouse University Hospital and the participating city councils in the three regions. The third MONA LISA survey was made possible by an unrestricted grant from Pfizer and a grant from the French National Research Agency (ANR-05-PNRA-018).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Épidémiologie et Santé Publique, INSERM 744, Institut Pasteur de Lille, Université Nord de France, Lille, France

    J Lê, J Dallongeville, D Cottel & L Dauchet

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, EA3430, University of Strasbourg, Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg, France

    A Wagner, D Arveiler & B Haas

  3. Laboratoire CarMeN, CRNH Rhône-Alpes, INSERM, INRA, University of Lyon, Lyon, France

    C Simon

Authors
  1. J Lê
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Dallongeville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D Arveiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D Cottel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L Dauchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L Dauchet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lê, J., Dallongeville, J., Wagner, A. et al. Attitudes toward healthy eating: a mediator of the educational level–diet relationship. Eur J Clin Nutr 67, 808–814 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.110

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2013.110

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links