Content uploaded by Anju Aggarwal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anju Aggarwal on Feb 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Time Spent on Home Food Preparation and
Indicators of Healthy Eating
Pablo Monsivais, PhD, MPH, Anju Aggarwal, PhD, MS, Adam Drewnowski, PhD, MA
Background: The amount of time spent on food preparation and cooking may have implications
for diet quality and health. However, little is known about how food-related time use relates to food
consumption and spending, either at restaurants or for food consumed at home.
Purpose: To quantitatively assess the associations among the amount of time habitually spent on
food preparation and patterns of self-reported food consumption, food spending, and frequency of
restaurant use.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 1,319 adults in a population-based survey conducted
in 2008–2009. The sample was stratified into those who spent o1 hour/day, 1–2 hours/day, and 42
hours/day on food preparation and cleanup. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression
models examined differences between time-use groups. Analyses were conducted in 2011–2013.
Results: Individuals who spent the least amount of time on food preparation tended to be working
adults who placed a high priority on convenience. Greater amount of time spent on home food
preparation was associated with indicators of higher diet quality, including significantly more
frequent intake of vegetables, salads, fruits, and fruit juices. Spending o1 hour/day on food
preparation was associated with significantly more money spent on food away from home and more
frequent use of fast food restaurants compared to those who spent more time on food preparation.
Conclusions: The findings indicate that time might be an essential ingredient in the production of
healthier eating habits among adults. Further research should investigate the determinants of
spending time on food preparation.
(Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]])&2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Introduction
Food preparation habits and skills have been
associated with healthier dietary intakes. In one
study,
1
young adults who regularly prepared food
consumed fast food less frequently and were more likely
to meet dietary recommendations. Another study
2
found
that families purchased a greater variety of vegetables on
a regular basis when the main food preparer had
confidence in preparing these foods. In a third study,
3
women who planned meals ahead of time and enjoyed
trying new recipes were more likely to consume two or
more servings of fruit per day whereas women who found
cooking to be a chore and spent little time cooking were
less likely to consume fruit. However, recent surveys
from the U.S. have revealed that time spent on cooking
and food preparation has declined substantially since the
1960s, with Americans currently spending an estimated
33 minutes per day on food preparation and cleanup.
4
Limited time available for cooking may be one of the
barriers to the adoption of more healthy diets. Time
scarcity was prevalent among working parentsearning low
wages in the U.S. Even those parents who valued healthy
family meals often served their children foods that were
fast and easy to prepare,
5
including hot dogs, pizza, and
macaroni and cheese.
6
Research on low- and middle-
income working parents showed that they coped with time
pressures by relying more on takeout and restaurant meals
and basing family meals on prepared entrees and other
quick options.
7
Lack of time was the leading barrier to
adopting dietary guidance cited by European adults.
8
The need for convenience may also be at odds with
recommended meal plans that are optimized for
From the School of Public Health (Monsivais, Aggarwal, Drewnowski),
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and Centre for Diet
and Activity Research (Monsivais), University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
United Kingdom
Address correspondence to: Pablo Monsivais, PhD, MPH, Centre for
Diet and Activity Research and Medical Research Council Epidemiology
Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285
Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 0QQ.
E-mail: pm491@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
0749-3797/$36.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.033
&2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine Published by Elsevier Inc. Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]] 1
nutrition and affordability. Economic analyses
9,10
of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Thrifty Food
Plan have found that these nutritious, low-cost meal
plans were time-intensive to prepare and much more
costly when time was explicitly accounted for. Other
analyses
11
indicate that for single-headed households,
time was a greater constraint than money in achieving
the Thrifty Food Plan’s dietary targets.
More research is needed to understand how time
availability figures into the preparation and consumption
of healthy diets, but relatively few studies have accounted
for time use generally or food-related time use in
particular. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively
explore the interplay between food-related time use,
restaurant use, and indicators of a healthy diet. Further,
little is known about the associations between time spent
on cooking and food spending. The present study
analyzed data from a population-based study of adults
to test the hypothesis that more time spent preparing,
cooking, and cleaning up from meals at home would be
associated with healthier patterns of food consumption
and fewer meals consumed away from home.
Methods
Subjects
The Seattle Obesity Study was a population-based study of social
determinants of diet and health.
12,13
A stratified sampling scheme
ensured adequate representation by income range and race/
ethnicity. Following standard procedures, randomly generated
telephone numbers were matched with residential addresses using
commercial databases. A pre-notification letter was mailed out to
alert potential participants that their household had been ran-
domly selected by the University of Washington School of Public
Health for a research study. Telephone calls were placed in the
afternoons and evenings by trained, computer-assisted inter-
viewers with up to 13 follow-up calls. Once the household was
contacted, an adult member of the household was randomly
selected to be the survey respondent.
Exclusion criteria were cell phone numbers, numbers that were
not associated with a residence, no person aged Z18 years living in
the residence, residents away for the duration of the interviewing
period, English language not spoken, and discordance between
address data obtained from the vendor and self-reported by the
respondent. Over the course of the study, 16,500 pre-notification
letters were mailed out and 5,102 of these were ruled out as
ineligible by the exclusion criteria.
Eligibility could not be confirmed for a large fraction of the
sample (9,292/16,500=56%). Of the 2,420 confirmed residential
households, 23 refused to participate and another 291 asked to be
called back but were not later reached; thus, eligibility for these
households could not be confirmed. Of the 2,106 confirmed
eligible households, 105 terminated the interview midway or only
partially completed the survey.
A 20-minute telephone survey was then administered to 2,001
participants to collect self-reported data on cooking and eating
habits; diet quality; and sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health
measures. Data were collected in 2008–2009; the protocols were
modeled on the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System
(BRFSS) surveys for Washington State
14,15
and were approved
by the University of Washington IRB.
Measures
The main independent variable of interest was time spent on
activities related to food preparation. Specifically, all participants
were asked the following open-ended question: How many hours
on average do you spend preparing, cooking, and cleaning up from
meals each time? Responses were recorded on a per-week basis.
This time-use question is similar to one currently used in the
Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey (FCBS) module administered
to participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES).
16
Based on the distribution of responses, data
were grouped into three time-use strata: o1hour/day,1–2 hours/day,
42hours/day.
Food consumption, food spending, and restaurant use were the
dependent variables of interest. Food consumption was measured
by frequency of consumption of six food groups that reflected
healthier and less-healthy intakes: fruit (excluding juice); green
salad; vegetables other than salad or potatoes; fruit juice; sugar-
sweetened beverages (including fruit drinks, soft drinks, and colas
but excluding diet or sugar-free drinks); and sweetened grain-
based snacks (including cookies and cakes).
These food groups were based on standard dietary questions
used in the BRFSS: fruit, fruit juice, and vegetables, from the BRFSS
core questionnaire
17
; sweet snacks, adapted from a module
previously used to examine sources of fat
18
; and sugar-sweetened
beverages, from state-specific BRFSS modules.
19
Respondents were
asked to report their frequency of consumption for each food,
which was coded in number of times per week by the survey
administrator.
Two estimates of self-reported, household-level food spending
were examined: total weekly food spending when eating out
(including restaurants, coffee shops, and fast food outlets) and
food spending excluding eating out, which primarily represented
food expenditures at supermarkets and grocery stores. These
questions were adapted from the NHANES FCBS
16
and were
phrased as follows: How much does your household spend on eating
out in an average week, not including alcohol or tips? and
Altogether, how much does your household spend on food in an
average week, excluding eating out? These household-level esti-
mates were then divided by number of people in each household to
obtain per-person weekly spending variables.
Restaurant use by the participant was documented by asking
questions again based on the NHANES FCBS
16
:When you eat out,
how often you go to each type of restaurant? Responses were
recorded separately for full-service and fast food/quick-service
restaurants. The five response options ranged from never or less
than twice a month to 4þtimes per week. For analytic purposes,
the variables were dichotomized into “once per week or more”
versus “less than once per week.”
Socioeconomic variables were educational attainment and house-
hold income. Both variables were re-grouped to reduce the degrees
of freedom in multivariable models and cut points for regroupings
were driven by the distribution of the sample and a priori categories
of interest. Six categories of education were re-coded into three
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]]2
www.ajpmonline.org
categories: high school or less, some college, and college grad-
uate or higher. Household income groups were also combined
into three categories: o$50,000 per year, $50,000–$99,999, and
Z$100,000.
Demographic variables of interest were age, gender, race/
ethnicity, and household size. Smoking was used as a lifestyle
indicator and was characterized as current smoker, former smoker,
and never having smoked. Respondents’attitude toward conven-
ience foods was captured using the following statement: It is
important to me that the foods I usually eat take little time to
purchase, cook, and clean up. Response options were on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree
with a neutral midpoint of neither agree nor disagree.
Because this study explored time use in relation to food
preparation and cooking, only main food providers (1,555/
2,001¼78% of the sample) were included in analyses. These
participants were identified based this on an affirmative response
to the following question: In your household, are you the person
who most often buys groceries and prepares meals? Further
restricting the analyses to those with complete data on dependent
and independent variables and other covariates resulted in an
analytic sample of 1,319 adults.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sociodemo-
graphic and attitudinal profile of three groups differing in food-
related time use. Pearson chi-square tests and ANOVA were used
to test for systematic differences in sociodemographic character-
istics and attitudes by group. General linear models were used to
provide covariate-adjusted means of food intake (servings per
week) and spending ($ per week), across the three time-use groups.
Covariates in these models were the respondent’s age, gender, race/
ethnicity, educational attainment, income, and employment status.
Multivariable logistic regressions were used to analyze the
likelihood of visiting restaurants once per week or more, adjusting
for the same covariates used in the general linear models above. In
all multivariable regressions, sensitivity analyses were conducted to
examine the importance of marital status in the analyses. All
analyses were conducted between 2011 and 2013 using SPSS,
version 18.0, for Mac.
Results
The analytic sample of 1,319 was composed mostly of
women (67.4%), which was a higher percentage than the
full sample, where women comprised 61.7%. The mean
age of the sample was 54 years overall, with women
slightly older on average (54.6 years) than men (53.8
years). Most of the respondents described themselves as
white (81.0%), with the rest made up of African
American (7.5%); Asian (6.7%); Hispanic (2.7%); and
other ethnic or racial groups (2.0%). About 16% of the
sample (212/1,319) reported spending o1 hour/day on
food preparation, cooking, and cleaning. Nearly 43%
(566/1,319) of participants reported spending 1–2hours/day
and 41% (541/1,319) reported spending 42 hours/day on
these tasks.
The sociodemographic profile and attitudes toward
convenience in food choices across the three time-use
groups are presented in Table 1. The group spending the
greatest amount of time preparing, cooking, and cleaning
up from meals (42 hours/day) tended to be women,
non-Hispanic whites, younger, and married as compared
to the group spending the least amount of time in these
activities (o1 hour/day). Moreover, those who spent
more time on food-related behaviors tended to have
higher household size and income but were less likely to
be employed or self-employed. Notably, the importance
of convenience in food choices was highest in the group
spending the least amount of time in food behaviors
(po0.001). Smoking behaviors did not appear to vary
systematically across the three groups (p¼0.744).
Fruit and vegetable consumption was systematically
and positively associated with food-related time use.
Multiple linear regression models were used to estimate
adjusted mean (SE) frequency of intake for six food
groups. These analyses were adjusted for key sociodemo-
graphic variables: age, gender, race, employment status,
education, and income. Table 2 shows that among those
who spent the most time in meal-related behaviors, fruit
(excluding juice) was consumed 8.4 times per week
compared to 6.1 times per week for those in the lowest
time-use group (pdifferenceo0.001).
Similarly, vegetables (excluding green salads and
potatoes) were consumed 13.6 times per week among
the top group compared to 10.6 times per week in the
bottom group (pdifferenceo0.001). Fruit juice con-
sumption also showed a positive but weaker association
with food-related time use, and consumption of sweet-
ened beverages and snacks showed no significant varia-
tion among the groups. Including marital status in these
models did not alter the magnitude or significance of any
of the associations.
Weekly food spending for meals and beverages away
from home showed an inverse and significant association
with meal-related time use, even after adjusting for
covariates. The per-person expenditure in the lowest
time-use group was 4$22/week whereas that in the
highest group was approximately $15/week (po0.001).
However, spending for food at home (including gro-
ceries) was not significantly associated with meal-related
time use.
Food-related time use showed some association with
frequency of restaurant use. Table 3 shows that the crude
percentage of each time-use group visiting full-service
restaurants at least once per week did not differ across
groups, but visits to quick-service (i.e., fast food restau-
rants) appeared to differ systematically. Approximately
43% of those who spent o1 hour/day on food prepara-
tion visited quick-service restaurants once per week or
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]] 3
]2014
more compared to just over 30% of those who spent
Z2 hours/day. On multivariable analysis, those who
spent o1 hour/day on meal-related activities were about
1.8 times more likely to visit quick-service restaurants
once per week or more compared to those who spent the
most time on food preparation. Analysis for use of full-
service restaurants showed no differences across groups.
Discussion
The results indicate that healthier food consumption
patterns may have an associated time cost. In this study,
healthier food consumption patterns, characterized by
more frequent consumption of fruits and vegetables, less
money spent on food away from home, and fewer visits to
fast food restaurants, were all significantly associated with
more time spent preparing, cooking, and cleaning up from
meals. One interpretation of these findings is that time
spent cooking at home is a prerequisite to achieving
healthier food consumption patterns. Even the USDA’s
Thrifty Food Plan (characterized by a healthy diet plan at
the lowest cost) heavily relies on cooking at home,
implying that home cooking is important for achieving
higher diet quality at lower costs.
20
However, a number of individual-level factors may
prevent individuals from cooking at home, including
limited time availability
5
and lack of cooking skills.
21
In
the present study, respondents who spent the least
amount of time cooking were more likely to be employed
or self-employed adults who prioritized convenience over
home-cooked meals. These individuals spent substan-
tially more money on food away from home and
patronized fast food restaurants more frequently com-
pared to the other groups, confirming that time savings
and convenience does come at a price.
22,23
These results
are consistent with analyses of U.S. consumer expendi-
ture data, which found that spending at quick-service
outlets was strongly and positively associated with hours
spent in paid employment.
24
The present findings were also largely in line with
patterns of time use observed in the general U.S.
population. Analyses
4,25
based on the American Time
Table 1. Sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics of three time-use groups, % unless otherwise noted
Hours per day spent preparing, cooking, and
cleaning up from meals
Total
(n¼1,319) p-value
a
o1 hour
(n¼212)
1–2 hours
(n¼566)
42 hours
(n¼541)
Age (years, M) 56.6 53.8 54.0 54.4 0.046
Women 55.2 68.6 71.0 67.4 o0.001
Married
b
21.2 39.9 54.9 43.1 o0.001
Non-Hispanic white 82.5 82.3 78.9 81.0 0.798
Household size
c
(M) 1.6 2.0 2.6 2.2 o0.001
Households with nchildrenr18
n¼0 86.3 74.9 62.3 71.5 o0.001
n¼1 4.7 13.5 15.2 12.7
nZ2 9.0 11.7 22.6 15.7
Four-year degree 49.5 54.8 56.6 54.7 0.229
Employed or self-employed 68.4 67.1 53.2 61.6 o0.001
Household income 450,000/year 46.7 58.3 57.1 56.0 0.005
Never smoker 55.2 53.4 52.1 53.1 0.744
High priority on convenience
d
43.1 26.3 20.2 26.5 o0.001
Note: Boldface indicates statistical significance.
a
p-value from ANOVA for age and household size and from Pearson χ
2
test for other all other variables.
b
Sample for marital status n¼1,317.
c
Household size, number of adults and children in the household.
d
Those who strongly agreed with the statement “It is important to me that the foods I usually eat take little time to purchase, cook and clean up.”
Sample for Convenience question n¼1,314.
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]]4
www.ajpmonline.org
Use Survey (ATUS) found that the responsibility for food
preparation was held primarily by women, whereas
adults who were married or not in paid employment
spent more time on food preparation. The ATUS also
indicates that time spent on food preparation increases
with greater numbers of children in the household, which
aligns with the present finding that participants in the
highest time-use group were most likely to have one or
more child resident in their households.
Although analyses of the ATUS have found that
respondents with lower income tended to spend slightly
more time on food preparation,
25
the present results
indicated that more time spent on food preparation was
associated with higher income. This contrast may be
related to the nature of the current study sample, which
had higher incomes and educational attainment than the
general U.S. population.
Limitations
Features of this study are worth addressing because they
may have implications for the results presented here.
First, the cross-sectional nature of the study limits the
Table 2. Adjusted
a
estimates of food consumption and food spending for three food-related time-use groups, M (SE)
Hours per day spent preparing, cooking, and cleaning up from
meals
p-value
b
o1 hour 1–2 hours 42 hours
Food consumption (frequency of consumption per week)
Fruit (not including juice) 6.1 (0.7) 7.1 (0.6) 8.4 (0.6) o0.001
Green salad, lettuce 2.8 (0.3) 3.2 (0.2) 3.6 (0.2) o0.001
Vegetables other than green salad or potatoes 10.6 (0.9) 12.1 (0.8) 13.6 (0.8) o0.001
Fruit juice 4.2 (0.5) 4.8 (0.4) 5.0 (0.4) 0.038
Sugar-sweetened beverages
c
3.3 (0.5) 3.4 (0.4) 3.7 (0.4) 0.369
Sweet snacks
d
2.9 (0.4) 2.6 (0.3) 2.7 (0.3) 0.309
Food spending ($ per person per week)
Eating out 22.8 (2.7) 16.4 (2.3) 15.1 (2.3) o0.001
Food at home 43.8 (4.3) 44.6 (3.7) 46.5 (3.6) 0.406
Note: Boldface indicates statistical significance.
a
Means adjusted in general linear models containing respondent’s age, gender, race, employment status, educational attainment, and income as
covariates.
b
p-value indicated for difference between lowest and highest time-use groups.
c
Including soft drinks, cola, and sweetened fruit drinks.
d
Including cakes, cookies, and other sweetened baked goods.
Table 3. Full- and quick-service restaurant use by three food-related time-use groups
Restaurant type
Hours per day spent preparing, cooking, and cleaning up from meals
p-value
a
o1 hour 1–2 hours 42 hours
Crude percentage of each time-use group with Z1 restaurant visit per week (%)
Full-service 37.7 41.0 38.8
Fast food/quick-service
b
42.9 38.9 30.7
Covariate-adjusted ORs
c
(95% CIs) for Z1 restaurant visit per week
Full-service 1.09 (0.77, 1.54) 1.13 (0.88, 1.45) ref 0.581
Fast food/quick-service
b
1.79 (1.27, 2.53) 1.44 (1.11, 1.86) ref 0.001
Note: Boldface indicates statistical significance.
a
p-value indicated for difference between lowest and highest time-use groups.
b
Fast food/quick-service defined as food outlets where payment is made prior to receiving food.
c
ORs from logistic regression models adjusting for respondent’s age, gender, race, employment status, educational attainment, and income as
covariates.
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]] 5
]2014
ability to draw conclusions regarding causality. Whether
more time spent on preparing food enables healthier
eating habits or whether individuals who consume
healthier diets also tend to enjoy spending more time
cooking could not be determined. Second, the independ-
ent variable (time use) and the three main outcomes
(food consumption, food spending, and restaurant use)
were all self-reported, which subjects them to both error
and bias.
26,27
Third, dietary intake of only a few food
groups was assessed and only frequency but not quantity
of intake. As a result, a more detailed and nuanced pic-
ture of diet quality in this sample could not be obtained.
Finally, the present analyses could not identify
whether these food behaviors lead to better health
outcomes, which would ideally be explored in longitudi-
nal study designs. These limitations are balanced by a
number of strengths, including a relatively large,
population-based sample of adults involved in food
shopping and preparation and what the authors believe
is a novel linkage of food intake, food spending, restau-
rant use, and time spent on food preparation, which is a
neglected domain in understanding dietary behavior.
Conclusions
The findings reported here indicate that spending time on
food preparation at home might be essential to healthier
dietary habits among adults. More research is needed to
identify barriers that limit cooking at home and the
lifestyles of those who prioritize convenience in food
choice. Meanwhile, dietary advice and food producers and
retailers should encourage foods and meals that are
nutritious and yet quick and convenient for the consumer.
Moreover, government efforts toward identifying lowest-
cost yet healthy food patterns
20
need to explicitly account
for the associated time costs of producing healthier meals.
Doing so would make the true costs of healthier diets
more realistic
9,10
and, importantly, inform improvements
to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to
better support healthy eating in low-income populations.
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (grant No. R01
DK076608). Pablo Monsivais also received support from the
Centre for Diet and Activity Research, a United Kingdom Clinical
Research Collaboration Public Health Research Centre of Excel-
lence funded by the British Heart Foundation, Economic and
Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National
Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust. The study
sponsors had no role in the study design, analysis, or publication.
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of
this paper.
References
1. Larson NI, Perry CL, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D. Food preparation
by young adults is associated with better diet quality. J Am Diet Assoc
2006;106(12):2001–7.
2. Winkler E, Turrell G. Confidence to cook vegetables and the buying
habits of Australian households. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110(5S):S52–S61.
3. Crawford D, Ball K, Mishra G, Salmon J, Timperio A. Which food-
related behaviours are associated with healthier intakes of fruits and
vegetables among women? Public Health Nutr 2007;10(3):256–65.
4. Hamrick KS, Andrews M, Guthrie J, Hopkins D, McClelland K. How
much time do Americans spend on food? US Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2011. www.ers.usda.gov/publica
tions/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib86.aspx#.U4-AYPm-;1cY.
5. Jabs J, Devine CM, Bisogni CA, Farrell TJ, Jastran M, Wethington E.
Trying to find the quickest way: employed mothers'constructions of
time for food. J Nutr Educ Behav 2007;39(1):18–25.
6. Devine CM, Jastran M, Jabs J, Wethington E, Farell TJ, Bisogni CA.
"A lot of sacrifices”: work-family spillover and the food choice coping
strategies of low-wage employed parents. Soc Sci Med 2006;63(10):
2591–603.
7. Devine CM, Farrell TJ, Blake CE, Jastran M, Wethington E, Bisogni
CA. Work conditions and the food choice coping strategies of
employed parents. J Nutr Educ Behav 2009;41(5):365–70.
8. Lappalainen R, Saba A, Holm L, Mykkanen H, Gibney MJ, Moles A.
Difficulties in trying to eat healthier: descriptive analysis of perceived
barriers for healthy eating. Eur J Clin Nutr 1997;51(S2):S36–S40.
9. Rose D. Food Stamps, the Thrifty Food Plan, and meal preparation: the
importance of the time dimension for US nutrition policy. J Nutr Educ
Behav 2007;39(4):226–32.
10. Davis GC, You W. The Thrifty Food Plan is not thrifty when labor cost
is considered. J Nutr 2010;140(4):854–7.
11. Davis GC, You W. Not enough money or not enough time to satisfy the
Thrifty Food Plan? A cost difference approach for estimating a money–
time threshold. Food Policy 2011;36(2):101–7.
12. Monsivais P, Aggarwal A, Drewnowski A. Are socio-economic
disparities in diet quality explained by diet cost? J Epidemiol
Community Health 2012;66(6):530–5.
13. Moudon AV, Cook AJ, Ulmer J, Hurvitz PM, Drewnowski A.
A neighborhood wealth metric for use in health studies. Am J Prev
Med 2011;41(1):88–97.
14. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. CDC. 2014. www.cdc.gov/
brfss/.
15. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Washington
State Department of Health. www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatistical
Reports/HealthBehaviors/BehavioralRiskFactorSurveillanceSystemBRFSS.
aspx.
16. Family Questionnaire CONSUMER BEHAVIOR –CBQ. National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Atlanta GA: CDC, 2009.
17. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaire, 2007.
Atlanta GA: CDC , 2006. www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/pdf-ques/
2007BRFSS.pdf.
18. Behavioral Risk Factor Questionnaire, 1994. Atlanta GA: CDC,
1993:40. www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/pdf-ques/94brfss.pdf.
19. Risica PM, Kerr S, Lawson E, Belhumeur R, Ankoma A. Self-report of
sugar-sweetened beverage and fast food consumption by annual
household income. Med Health R I 2009;92(2):63–4.
20. Carlson A, Lino M, Juan W-Y, Hanson K, Basiotis PP. Thrifty Food
Plan, Report No.: CNPP-19. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promo-
tion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007. www.cnpp.usda.gov/
publications/foodplans/miscpubs/tfp2006report.pdf.
21. Wrieden WL, Anderson AS, Longbottom PJ, et al. The impact of a
community-based food skills intervention on cooking confidence, food
preparation methods and dietary choices–an exploratory trial. Public
Health Nutr 2007;10(2):203–11.
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]]6
www.ajpmonline.org
22. Stewart H, Blisard N, Jolliffe D. Let's eat out: Americans weigh taste,
convenience and nutrition. United States Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service . 2006. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/
860870/eib19.pdf.
23. Davis GC, You W. Preparing food at home: what is the labor cost?
American Agricultural Economics Association, 2006.
24. Stewart H, Blisard N, Jolliffe D, Bhuyan S. The demand for food away
from home: do other preferences compete with our desire to eat
healthfully? J Agric Resource Econ 2005;30(3):520–36.
25. Mancino L, Newman C. Who has time to cook? How family resources
influence food preparation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. 2007. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economi
c-research-report/err40.aspx#.U4-AB_m-1cY.
26. White E, Armstrong BK, Saracci R. Principles of measurement in
exposure epidemiology: collecting, evaluating, and improving measures
of disease risk factors. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
27. Willett W. Nutritional epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
Monsivais et al / Am J Prev Med 2014;](]):]]]–]]] 7
]2014
