scholarly journals Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Eating and Purchasing Behaviours of People Living in England

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1499
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Ogundijo ◽  
Ayten A. Tas ◽  
Bukola A. Onarinde
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Eating Habits ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Eating Behaviours ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Market Research Company ◽  
Research Company ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Consumers’ eating habits have changed significantly due to the anxiety and boredom from the reported cases and deaths of COVID-19, the change in work patterns, controlled food shopping, and the inability to meet loved ones during the lockdown. The magnitude of these changes in the eating behaviours and purchasing habits of consumers varies across different groups of people. This study provides empirical evidence of the effects of COVID-19 on the eating and purchasing behaviours of people living in England, which was assessed based on sociodemographic variables. A total of 911 participants were recruited by a market research company, while only 792 useable responses were included in this study. The participants, aged between 18 and 91 years, completed an online questionnaire, and the data were analysed using ordinal regression. Data were collected between October and December 2020. Male participants constituted 34.60%, females 63.89%, and others (other gender and those who prefer not to declare their gender) were 0.63%. The majority of participants’ ages fell into the ranges of 23–38 and 39–54. Participants aged 23 to 38 years had the greatest effect of COVID-19 on their purchasing decision of healthier foods, while participants in the age groups 55–73 and 74–91 were least affected. The amount of foods purchased during the pandemic decreased with increasing age. The amount of foods purchased by students, people in employment, and people from minority ethnic groups were greatly affected by the pandemic. All participants who stated that taking food supplements is not important during the pandemic were from the White ethnic group. The effects of the pandemic on purchasing healthier foods were greater in younger generations and participants in full- or part-time employment than participants who were retired and who were aged above 55. The participants with higher educational qualifications and those from minority ethnic groups were also more affected by the pandemic. We suggest further studies to monitor any changes in the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on the eating and purchasing behaviours of consumers.

scholarly journals HIGH SEROPREVALENCE FOR TOXOCARIASIS AMONG MINORITY GROUPS OF VARNA REGION, BULGARIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 3852-3862
Author(s):  
Tatyana Cvetkova ◽  
◽  
Kalina Stoyanova ◽  
Tsonko Paunov ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Control Group ◽  
High Seroprevalence ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Toxocariasis in humans is a little-studied zoonosis, and there are no data on the impact of this parasitosis on the minority groups in our country. The purpose of this study is to establish the seroprevalence of toxocariasis among ethnic groups in the Varna region, North-eastern Bulgaria, and compare the results with a control group from the general population. Material/Methods: As a part of a large seroepidemiologic study, we assessed the presence of Toxocara IgG among 132 individuals, self-identified with Turkish and Roma ethnicities. As a control group, we used 250 sera from children and adults from a control group. The statistical comparison was performed regarding age, sex, and type of residence. Results: Toxocara IgG were established in 43 individuals from the minority groups (seroprevalence of 32.58%) and 39 persons in the control group (15.60%) with а statistically significant difference (odds ratio = 2.61). Considerably high seropositivity in the investigated ethnicities was discovered after separating by age: children-33.33%; adults-32.00% and gender: male-38.98%; female-27.40%. A detailed analysis revealed that the type of settlement is an important confounding factor. The seropositivity among the minority ethnic groups residing in small towns and villages is 35,40%, in contrast to the residents of Varna city of the same ethnical origin (15.79%); OR = 2.92. Conclusion: The established high seroprevalence for Toxocara IgG among minority ethnic groups, especially those residing in the rural settlements of North-eastern Bulgaria, shows undiscovered to this point increased risk for the spread of toxocariasis among this population.

Reconceptualizing indigeneity in minority ethnic groups

2020 ◽  
pp. 009182962097238
Author(s):  
Richard Hibbert ◽  
Evelyn Hibbert
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
Western European ◽  
Sense Of Identity ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Theoretical Foundations ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Models of indigeneity and contextualization tend to overlook the impact of surrounding cultures on the culture and sense of identity of minority ethnic groups. Recent debate about ethnic groups and their cultures in anthropology provides essential theoretical foundations for examining this issue. This article begins by exploring these foundations and their implications for missiological conceptions of indigeneity and for fostering indigenous expressions of faith. Then, drawing on theories of acculturation, the dynamic and multifaceted influence of other (particularly more dominant) cultures on minority groups is discussed, using the case of the Turkish-speaking Millet in Bulgaria and their western European diaspora to illustrate this. The consequences of failing to recognize outside influence on minority groups include miscontextualization and misapplication of principles of indigeneity. These are illustrated through the case of the Millet. Finally, implications for missionary practice are drawn out.

scholarly journals Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response among Non-Western Minorities

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes W. S. Kappelhof ◽  
Edith D. De Leeuw
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Mode Selection ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Selection Effects ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Minority Ethnic ◽  
Measurement Effects

This study investigates the impact of different modes and tailor-made response enhancing measures (TMREM)—such as bilingual interviewers with a shared ethnic background and translated questionnaires—on the measurement of substantive variables in surveys among minority ethnic groups in the Netherlands. It also provides insight into the ability to detect mode measurement effects of a recently developed method for disentangling mode measurement and mode selection effects, as well as into the tenability of the assumptions underlying this method. The data used in this study come from a large-scale survey design experiment among the four largest non-Western minority ethnic groups in the Netherlands comparing single-mode computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and sequential computer-assisted web interviewing, computer-assisted telephone interviewing, and CAPI-MM. The number and intensity of the TMREM varied among the four ethnic groups. The results show that mode measurement effects occur among all ethnic groups and are the result of a combination of the presence or absence of an interviewer and TMREM. Mode measurement effects occur more often on sociocultural questions, but also, on occasion, on more sociostructural or background questions. The method used to disentangle mode measurement and mode selection effects can be applied to detect mode measurement effects, but one should be cautious in interpreting them. Implausible mode measurement effects can be caused by the violation of the assumptions underlying this method.

scholarly journals REACT-2 Round 5: increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Ward ◽  
Graham Cooke ◽  
Matthew Whitaker ◽  
Rozlyn Redd ◽  
Oliver Eales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Older Individuals ◽  
Igg Antibody ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Antibody Positivity ◽  
Vaccine Confidence ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Abstract Background England has experienced high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting in particular minority ethnic groups and more deprived communities. A vaccination programme began in England in December 2020, with priority given to administering the first dose to the largest number of older individuals, healthcare and care home workers. Methods A cross-sectional community survey in England undertaken between 26 January and 8 February 2021 as the fifth round of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) programme. Participants completed questionnaires, including demographic details and clinical and COVID-19 vaccination histories, and self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test to detect IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. There were sufficient numbers of participants to analyse antibody positivity after 21 days from vaccination with the PfizerBioNTech but not the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine which was introduced slightly later. Results The survey comprised 172,099 people, with valid IgG antibody results from 155,172. The overall prevalence of antibodies (weighted to be representative of the population of England and adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity) in England was 13.9% (95% CI 13.7, 14.1) overall, 37.9% (37.2, 38.7) in vaccinated and 9.8% (9.6, 10.0) in unvaccinated people. The prevalence of antibodies (weighted) in unvaccinated people was highest in London at 16.9% (16.3, 17.5), and higher in people of Black (22.4%, 20.8, 24.1) and Asian (20.0%, 19.0, 21.0) ethnicity compared to white (8.5%, 8.3, 8.7) people. The uptake of vaccination by age was highest in those aged 80 years or older (93.5%). Vaccine confidence was high with 92.0% (91.9, 92.1) of people saying that they had accepted or intended to accept the offer. Vaccine confidence varied by age and ethnicity, with lower confidence in young people and those of Black ethnicity. Particular concerns were identified around pregnancy, fertility and allergies. In 971 individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the proportion testing positive was high across all age groups. Following a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, 84.1% (82.2, 85.9) of people under 60 years tested positive (unadjusted) with a decreasing trend with increasing age, but high responses to a single dose in those with confirmed or suspected prior COVID at 90.1% (87.2, 92.4) across all age groups. Conclusions There is uneven distribution of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population with a higher burden in key workers and some minority ethnic groups, similar to the pattern in the first wave. Confidence in the vaccine programme is high overall although it was lower in some of the higher prevalence groups which suggests the need for improved communication about specific perceived risks. Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or a single dose following previous infection, confers high levels of antibody positivity across all ages. Further work is needed to understand the relationship between antibody positivity, clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation, and transmission.

scholarly journals Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK Household Longitudinal Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine Robertson ◽  
Kelly S Reeve ◽  
Claire L Niedzwiedz ◽  
Jamie Moore ◽  
Margaret Blake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Black British ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Minority Ethnic

ABSTRACTBackgroundVaccination is crucial to address the COVID-19 pandemic but vaccine hesitancy could undermine control efforts. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK population, identify which population subgroups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant, and report stated reasons for vaccine hesitancy.MethodsNationally representative survey data from 12,035 participants were collected from 24th November to 1st December 2020 for wave 6 of the ‘Understanding Society’ COVID-19 web survey. Participants were asked how likely or unlikely they would be to have a vaccine if offered and their main reason for hesitancy. Cross-sectional analysis assessed prevalence of vaccine hesitancy and logistic regression models conducted.FindingsOverall intention to be vaccinated was high (82% likely/very likely). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in women (21.0% vs 14.7%), younger age groups (26.5% in 16-24 year olds vs 4.5% in 75+) and less educated (18.6% no qualifications vs 13.2% degree qualified). Vaccine hesitancy was particularly high in Black (71.8%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (42.3%), Mixed (32.4%) and non-UK/Irish White (26.4%) ethnic groups. Fully adjusted models showed gender, education and ethnicity were independently associated with vaccine hesitancy. Odds ratios for vaccine hesitancy were 12.96 (95% CI:7.34, 22.89) in the Black/Black British and 2.31 (95% CI:1.55, 3.44) in Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups (compared to White British/Irish ethnicity) and 3.24 (95%CI:1.93, 5.45) for people with no qualifications compared to degree educated. The main reason for hesitancy was fears over unknown future effects.InterpretationOlder people at greatest COVID-19 mortality risk expressed the greatest willingness to be vaccinated but Black and Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic groups had greater vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine programmes should prioritise measures to improve uptake in specific minority ethnic groups.FundingMedical Research CouncilResearch in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched Embase and Medline up to November 16, 2020, using key words “vaccine hesitancy” and “COVID-19” or “SARS-CoV-2”. Vaccine hesitancy is complex but also context specific. Previous research about vaccine hesitancy relates to existing adult and childhood vaccines, with limited evidence currently available on willingness to be vaccinated for newly available COVID-19 vaccines. Existing vaccination programmes often have lower uptake among more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Uptake of vaccines has often varied across ethnic groups, but patterns have often varied across different vaccine programmes.Added value of this studyOur study describes the sub-groups of the UK population who are more likely to be hesitant about a COVID-19 vaccine and examines possible explanations for this. We used nationally representative data from the COVID-19 survey element of the UK’s largest household panel study. We asked specifically about vaccine hesitancy in relation to a COVID-19 vaccine at a time when initial results of vaccine trials were being reported in the media. We found willingness to be vaccinated is generally high across the UK population but marked differences exist across population subgroups. Willingness to be vaccinated was greater in older age groups and in men. However, some minority ethnic groups, particularly Black/Black British and Pakistani/Bangladeshi, had high levels of vaccine hesitancy but this was not seen across all minority ethnic groups. People with lower education levels were also more likely to be vaccine hesitant.Implications of all the available evidenceThe current evidence base on vaccine hesitancy in relation to COVID-19 is rapidly emerging but remains limited. Polling data has also found relatively high levels of willingness to take up a COVID-19 vaccine and suggested greater risks of vaccine hesitancy among Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people. Our study suggests that the risk of vaccine hesitancy differs across minority ethnic groups considerably, with Black ethnic groups particularly likely to be vaccine hesitant within the UK. Some White minority ethnic groups are also more likely to be vaccine hesitant than White British/Irish people.Herd immunity may be achievable through vaccination in the UK but a focus on specific ethnic minority and socioeconomic groups is needed to ensure an equitable vaccination programme.

scholarly journals Unequal impact of the COVID-19 crisis on minority ethnic groups: a framework for understanding and addressing inequalities

2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-216061
Author(s):  
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi ◽  
Sham Lal ◽  
Enitan D Carrol ◽  
Claire L Niedzwiedz ◽  
Kamlesh Khunti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Complex Interplay ◽  
Structural Racism ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Minority Ethnic

Minority ethnic groups have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the exact reasons for this remain unclear, they are likely due to a complex interplay of factors rather than a single cause. Reducing these inequalities requires a greater understanding of the causes. Research to date, however, has been hampered by a lack of theoretical understanding of the meaning of ‘ethnicity’ (or race) and the potential pathways leading to inequalities. In particular, quantitative analyses have often adjusted away the pathways through which inequalities actually arise (ie, mediators for the effect of interest), leading to the effects of social processes, and particularly structural racism, becoming hidden. In this paper, we describe a framework for understanding the pathways that have generated ethnic (and racial) inequalities in COVID-19. We suggest that differences in health outcomes due to the pandemic could arise through six pathways: (1) differential exposure to the virus; (2) differential vulnerability to infection/disease; (3) differential health consequences of the disease; (4) differential social consequences of the disease; (5) differential effectiveness of pandemic control measures and (6) differential adverse consequences of control measures. Current research provides only a partial understanding of some of these pathways. Future research and action will require a clearer understanding of the multiple dimensions of ethnicity and an appreciation of the complex interplay of social and biological pathways through which ethnic inequalities arise. Our framework highlights the gaps in the current evidence and pathways that need further investigation in research that aims to address these inequalities.

scholarly journals Perceived major experiences of discrimination, ethnic group, and risk of psychosis in a six-country case−control study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Supriya Misra ◽  
Bizu Gelaye ◽  
David R. Williams ◽  
Karestan C. Koenen ◽  
Christina P.C. Borba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Excess Risk ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Minority Ethnic ◽  
Control Study

Abstract Background Perceived discrimination is associated with worse mental health. Few studies have assessed whether perceived discrimination (i) is associated with the risk of psychotic disorders and (ii) contributes to an increased risk among minority ethnic groups relative to the ethnic majority. Methods We used data from the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions Work Package 2, a population-based case−control study of incident psychotic disorders in 17 catchment sites across six countries. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between perceived discrimination and psychosis using mixed-effects logistic regression models. We used stratified and mediation analyses to explore differences for minority ethnic groups. Results Reporting any perceived experience of major discrimination (e.g. unfair treatment by police, not getting hired) was higher in cases than controls (41.8% v. 34.2%). Pervasive experiences of discrimination (≥3 types) were also higher in cases than controls (11.3% v. 5.5%). In fully adjusted models, the odds of psychosis were 1.20 (95% CI 0.91–1.59) for any discrimination and 1.79 (95% CI 1.19–1.59) for pervasive discrimination compared with no discrimination. In stratified analyses, the magnitude of association for pervasive experiences of discrimination appeared stronger for minority ethnic groups (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.12–2.68) than the ethnic majority (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.65–3.10). In exploratory mediation analysis, pervasive discrimination minimally explained excess risk among minority ethnic groups (5.1%). Conclusions Pervasive experiences of discrimination are associated with slightly increased odds of psychotic disorders and may minimally help explain excess risk for minority ethnic groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document