Table 1 |
||||
Characteristics of studied population according to immigration status, ORISCAV-LUX survey, 2007-2008 | ||||
Portuguese 1^{st}generation % (N) | Portuguese 2^{nd}generation % (N) | Luxembourgers % (N) | P value† | |
n | 169 | 22 | 652 | |
Age (years) (n 843) * | 40.54 ±17 | 30.6 ± 7 | 47.71 ± 21 | <0.0001^{a, 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 (%) | <0.0001^{a, 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 (%) | <0.0001^{a, 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 | <0.0001^{a, 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 | 0.032^{b} |
Fat (% Kcal) (n 791) | 35.43 ± 6.88 | 37.54 ± 4.93 | 39.13 ± 7.05 | <0.0001^{b} |
Carbohydrates (% Kcal) (n 791) | 43.84 ± 7.45 | 44.22 ± 6.21 | 41.95 ± 7.44 | 0.009^{b} |
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 X^{2} 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 1^{st} generation to Portuguese 2^{nd} generation.
b indicates that the P-value is significant when comparing Portuguese 1^{st} generation to Luxembourgers.
C indicates that the P-value is significant when comparing Portuguese 2^{nd} generation to Luxembourgers.
Alkerwi et al.
Alkerwi et al. BMC Public Health 2012 12:864 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-864