ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Explaining socioeconomic inequality in food consumption patterns among households with women of childbearing age in South Africa.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The changing food environment shifts peoples' eating behaviour toward unhealthy food, including ultra-processed food (UPF), leading to detrimental health outcomes like obesity. This study examines changes in socioeconomic inequalities in food consumption spending between 2005/06 and 2010/11 in South African households with women of childbearing age (15 to 49) (WCBA). Data come from the 2005/06 and 2010/11 Income and Expenditure Surveys. The distribution of spending according to the NOVA food classification system groupings (unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed and UPF products) was analysed using standard methodologies. Changes in spending inequalities between 2005/06 and 2010/11 were assessed using the concentration index (C), while the factors explaining the changes in spending inequalities were identified using the Oaxaca decomposition approach. The Kakwani index (K) was used to assess progressivity. Results show that average real spending on all food categories, including UPF, increased between 2005/06 and 2010/11. Socioeconomic inequality in UPF consumption spending decreased (C = 0.498 in 2005/06 and C = 0.432 in 2010/11), and spending on processed foods (C = 0.248 in 2005/06 and C = 0.209 in 2010/11). Socioeconomic status, race, and urban residence contributed to overall socioeconomic inequality and changes in UPF consumption inequality between 2005/06 and 2010/11. Spending on all food categories was regressive in 2005/06 (K = -0.173 for UPF and -0.425 for processed foods) and 2010/11 (K = -0.192 for UPF and -0.418 for processed foods) because such spending comprises a larger share of poorer household's income than their wealthier counterparts. The government should address these contributors to inequality to mitigate the risks associated with UPF consumption, especially among less affluent households.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.