Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 24;15(1):71.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-018-0699-8.

Examining the interaction of fast-food outlet exposure and income on diet and obesity: evidence from 51,361 UK Biobank participants

Thomas Burgoine  1 , Chinmoy Sarkar  2 , Chris J Webster  2 , Pablo Monsivais  3   4
Affiliations

Examining the interaction of fast-food outlet exposure and income on diet and obesity: evidence from 51,361 UK Biobank participants

Thomas Burgoine et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Household income (as a marker of socioeconomic position) and neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure may be related to diet and body weight, which are key risk factors for non-communicable diseases. However, the research evidence is equivocal. Moreover, understanding the double burden of these factors is a matter of public health importance. The purpose of this study was to test associations of neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure and household income, in relation to frequency of consumption of processed meat and multiple measures of adiposity, and to examine possible interactions.

Methods: We employed an observational, cross-sectional study design. In a cohort of 51,361 adults aged 38-72 years in Greater London, UK, we jointly classified participants based on household income (£/year, four groups) and GIS-derived neighbourhood fast-food outlet proportion (counts of fast-food outlets as a percentage of all food outlets, quartiles). Multivariable regression models estimated main effects and interactions (additive and multiplicative) of household income and fast-food outlet proportion on odds of self-reported frequent processed meat consumption (> 1/week), measured BMI (kg/m2), body fat (%), and odds of obesity (BMI ≥ 30).

Results: Income and fast-food proportion were independently, systematically associated with BMI, body fat, obesity and frequent processed meat consumption. Odds of obesity were greater for lowest income participants compared to highest (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.41, 1.69) and for those most-exposed to fast-food outlets compared to least-exposed (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.40, 1.64). In jointly classified models, lowest income and highest fast-food outlet proportion in combination were associated with greater odds of obesity (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 2.09, 2.84), with relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI = 0.03). Results were similar for frequent processed meat consumption models. There was no evidence of interaction on a multiplicative scale between fast-food outlet proportion and household income on each of BMI (P = 0.230), obesity (P = 0.054) and frequent processed meat consumption (P = 0.725).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrated independent associations of neighbourhood fast-food outlet exposure and household income, in relation to diet and multiple objective measures of adiposity, in a large sample of UK adults. Moreover, we provide evidence of the double burden of low income and an unhealthy neighbourhood food environment, furthering our understanding of how these factors contribute jointly to social inequalities in health.

Keywords: Adiposity; Fast-food outlet exposure; Household income; Interaction; Processed meat consumption; UK biobank.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

UK Biobank received ethical approval from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC), the Community Health Index Advisory Group (CHIAG) and the Patient Information Advisory Group (PIAG).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None for TB and PM. CS and CW report grants from UK Biobank and the ESRC during conduct of this study.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Newton JN, Briggs ADM, Murray CJL, Dicker D, Foreman KJ, Wang H, Naghavi M, Forouzanfar MH, Ohno SL, Barber RM, et al. Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386:2257–2274. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00195-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rayner M, Scarborough P. The burden of food related ill health in the UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:1054–1057. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.036491. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2010;121:1–20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Micha R, Penalvo JL, Cudhea F, Imamura F, Rehm CD, Mozzaffarian D. Association between dietary risk factors and mortality from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2017;317:912–924. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0947. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozzaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2011;121:2271–2283. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms