Table 1 |
||||
| Characteristics of studied population according to immigration status, ORISCAV-LUX survey, 2007-2008 | ||||
| Portuguese 1stgeneration % (N) | Portuguese 2ndgeneration % (N) | Luxembourgers % (N) | P value† | |
| n | 169 | 22 | 652 | |
| Age (years) (n 843) * | 40.54 ±17 | 30.6 ± 7 | 47.71 ± 21 | <0.0001a, b, c |
| Gender | 0.092 | |||
| Men (n 410) | 55 (93) | 59.1 (13) | 46.6 (304) | |
| Women (n 433) | 45 (76) | 40.9 (9) | 53.4 (348) | |
| Education level (%) | <0.0001a, b | |||
| Primary (n 245) | 67.7 (113) | 13.6 (3) | 20 (129) | |
| Secondary (n 418) | 28.7 (48) | 54.5 (12) | 55.6 (358) | |
| Tertiary (n 170) | 3.6 (6) | 31.8 (7) | 24.4 (157) | |
| Economic status (%) | <0.0001a, b | |||
| below poverty threshold (n 144) | 44.4 (68) | 16.7 (3) | 13.2 (73) | |
| above poverty threshold (n 578) | 55.6 (85) | 83.3 (15) | 86.8 (478) | |
| Work status | <0.0001a, b, c | |||
| Employed (n 524) | 74.6 (126) | 81.8 (18) | 58.4 (380) | |
| Non-employed (n 76) | 7.1 (12) | 18.2 (4) | 9.2 (60) | |
| Housewife (n 107) | 8.3 (14) | 0 (0) | 14.3 (93) | |
| Retired (n 135) | 10.1 (17) | 0 (0) | 18.1 (118) | |
| Total dietary calories (Kcal) (n 796)* | 2121.63 ± 1006 | 2307.06 ±1353 | 2274.18 ±1153 | 0.032b |
| Fat (% Kcal) (n 791) | 35.43 ± 6.88 | 37.54 ± 4.93 | 39.13 ± 7.05 | <0.0001b |
| Carbohydrates (% Kcal) (n 791) | 43.84 ± 7.45 | 44.22 ± 6.21 | 41.95 ± 7.44 | 0.009b |
| Fibers (g/day) (n 796) * | 22.3 ±12 | 20 ± 18 | 23.5 ± 13 | 0.207 |
Data are expressed as means ± SD, otherwise median (Inter-quartile interval) is indicated as*.
P values are from X2 tests for categorical variables, whereas ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis were used for normally and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively.
† P-value indicates the comparison between the 3 groups.
a indicates that the P-value is significant when comparing Portuguese 1st generation to Portuguese 2nd generation.
b indicates that the P-value is significant when comparing Portuguese 1st generation to Luxembourgers.
C indicates that the P-value is significant when comparing Portuguese 2nd generation to Luxembourgers.
Alkerwi et al. BMC Public Health 2012 12:864 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-864
