Evidence Hub

Dietary patterns and non-communicable disease risk in Indian adults: secondary analysis of Indian Migration Study data

E. Joy, Rosemary Green, S. Agrawal, L. Aleksandrowicz, L. Bowen, S. Kinra, J. Macdiarmid, A. Haines et al.

Public Health Nutrition, 2017

7,067 participants · 53 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective Undernutrition and non-communicable disease (NCD) are important public health issues in India, yet their relationship with dietary patterns is poorly understood. The current study identified distinct dietary patterns and their association with micronutrient undernutrition (Ca, Fe, Zn) and NCD risk factors (underweight, obesity, waist:hip ratio, hypertension, total:HDL cholesterol, diabetes). Design Data were from the cross-sectional Indian Migration Study, including semi-quantitative FFQ. Distinct dietary patterns were identified using finite mixture modelling; associations with NCD risk factors were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models. Setting India. Subjects Migrant factory workers, their rural-dwelling siblings and urban non-migrants. Participants (7067 adults) resided mainly in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Results Five distinct, regionally distributed, dietary patterns were identified, with rice-based patterns in the south and wheat-based patterns in the north-west. A rice-based pattern characterised by low energy consumption and dietary diversity (‘Rice & low diversity’) was consumed predominantly by adults with little formal education in rural settings, while a rice-based pattern with high fruit consumption (‘Rice & fruit’) was consumed by more educated adults in urban settings. Dietary patterns met WHO macronutrient recommendations, but some had low micronutrient contents. Dietary pattern membership…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 7,067 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free