Skip to main content

Table 4 Logistic regressions of food purchasing motives according to nutritional status & QOL of the elderly in South Korea (N = 143)a

From: Association between combinations of nutritional status and quality of life and food purchasing motives among the elderly in South Korea

 UnadjustedbAdjustedc
OR (95% CI)Pd,eOR (95% CI)P
Taste
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL0.887 (0.289–2.721)0.8340.830 (0.207–3.326)0.793
 low nutritional status & high QOL0.318 (0.110–0.922)0.0350.279 (0.083–0.939)0.039
 low nutritional status & low QOL0.544 (0.222–1.338)0.1850.589 (0.192–1.804)0.354
Ease of chewing
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL3.570 (1.108–11.504)0.0336.715 (1.438–31.365)0.015
 low nutritional status & high QOL1.633 (0.579–4.609)0.3541.837 (0.579–5.832)0.302
 low nutritional status & low QOL1.838 (0.772–4.374)0.1691.716 (0.604–4.880)0.311
Price
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL1.011 (0.315–3.249)0.9850.977 (0.219–4.364)0.976
 low nutritional status & high QOL2.529 (0.625–10.233)0.1933.260 (0.722–14.716)0.124
 low nutritional status & low QOL1.433 (0.522–3.937)0.4852.107 (0.572–7.759)0.263
Ease of opening the package
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL0.538 (0.187–1.552)0.2520.279 (0.071–1.099)0.068
 low nutritional status & high QOL1.010 (0.344–2.962)0.9860.698 (0.209–2.334)0.560
 low nutritional status & low QOL1.005 (0.407–2.480)0.9910.536 (0.169–1.700)0.289
Preventive or treatment effect on disease
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL2.333 (0.244–22.281)0.4622.419 (0.207–28.308)0.481
 low nutritional status & high QOL0.528 (0.119–2.349)0.4020.693 (0.140–3.430)0.653
 low nutritional status & low QOL0.685 (0.178–2.632)0.5821.333 (0.267–6.649)0.726
Nutrition quality
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL2.857 (0.311–26.207)0.3532.590 (0.231–29.046)0.440
 low nutritional status & high QOL1.500 (0.267–8.434)0.6453.520 (0.440–28.139)0.235
 low nutritional status & low QOL0.905 (0.253–3.230)0.8772.660 (0.472–15.005)0.268
Length of cooking time
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL0.512 (0.178–1.471)0.2140.585 (0.161–2.127)0.415
 low nutritional status & high QOL1.386 (0.479–4.011)0.5471.768 (0.542–5.770)0.345
 low nutritional status & low QOL1.027 (0.429–2.455)0.9531.499 (0.512–4.387)0.460
Ease to purchase
 high nutritional status & high QOL1.000 1.000 
 high nutritional status & low QOL0.339 (0.112–1.026)0.0550.382 (0.100–1.455)0.159
 low nutritional status & high QOL1.966 (0.551–7.005)0.2972.259 (0.602–8.471)0.227
 low nutritional status & low QOL0.772 (0.308–1.938)0.5820.951 (0.324–2.790)0.927
  1. Abbreviations: MNA mini nutritional assessment, QOL quality of life, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, ref reference
  2. aNutritional status and QOL are grouped by combinations of each category of nutritional status and QOL
  3. bUnadjusted result of logistic regression analysis
  4. cAdjusted for age, sex, marital status, education, income, and number of chronic diseases
  5. dTrend analysis for the null hypothesis that OR = 1.0 (ref =  high nutritional status & high QOL)
  6. eValues in boldface are significant at p < 0.05