A More Supportive Social Environment May Protect Against Nutritional Risk: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Using Data From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

Nicole Ingham,Katherine Labonté,Laurette Dube,Catherine Paquet,Daiva E Nielsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.01.020

Abstract:Background: Nutritional risk has been linked to individual social factors, but the relationship with the overall social environment has not been assessed. Objectives: To evaluate associations between different support profiles of the social environment and nutritional risk using cross-sectional data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (n = 20,206). Subgroup analyses were performed among middle-aged (range, 45-64 y; n = 12,726) and older-aged (≥65 y, n = 7480) adults. Consumption of major food groups [whole grains, proteins, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables (FV)] by social environment profile was a secondary outcome. Methods: Latent structure analysis (LSA) classified participants into social environment profiles according to data on network size, social participation, social support, social cohesion, and social isolation. Nutritional risk and food group consumption were assessed with the SCREEN-II-AB and Short Dietary questionnaires, respectively. ANCOVA was conducted to compare SCREEN-II-AB mean scores by social environment profile, adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Models were repeated to compare mean food group consumption (times/day) by social environment profile. Results: LSA identified 3 social environment profiles classified as low, medium, and high support (17%, 40%, and 42% of the sample, respectively). Adjusted mean SCREEN-II-AB scores significantly increased with increasing social environment support, with the low support score indicating high nutritional risk status [low, medium, high support, respectively: 37.1 (99% CI: 36.9, 37.4), 39.3 (39.2, 39.5), 40.3 (40.2, 40.5), all comparisons P < 0.0001]. Results were consistent among age subgroups. The low support social environment profile had lower consumption of protein [low, medium, high support, respectively (mean ± SD): 2.17 ± 0.09, 2.21 ± 0.07, 2.23 ± 0.08, P = 0.004], dairy (2.32 ± 0.23, 2.40 ± 0.20, 2.38 ± 0.21, P = 0.009), and FV (3.65 ± 0.23, 3.94 ± 0.20, 4.08 ± 0.21, P < 0.0001), with some variation among age subgroups. Conclusions: The low support social environment profile had the poorest nutritional outcomes. Therefore, a more supportive social environment may protect against nutritional risk among middle- and older-aged adults.