48x36%20Poster%20Template

1
Whos cooking? Analysis of food preparation time
in the 2003 ATUS Jennifer Jabs, MS, RD and Carol
M. Devine, PhD, RD
Table 3 Of those reporting any time in food
prep Ln(min/day)
Table1 Characteristics of subjects
Women n7349 Women n7349 Women n7349 Men n5862 Men n5862
Characteristic n n
Age 21-30yr 1251 17.0 871 14.9
31-40yr 2196 29.9 1743 44.6
41-50yr 2090 28.4 1780 30.4
51-62yr 1812 26.7 1468 25.0
Race white 6090 82.9 4976 84.9
non-white 1259 17.1 886 15.1
Ethnicity non-Hispanic 6447 87.7 5148 87.8
Hispanic 902 12.3 714 12.2
Education ltcollege degree 4119 56.1 3299 56.3
college degree 3230 44.0 2563 43.7
HH income lt40,000 3122 42.5 2045 34.9
40,000 4227 57.5 3817 65.1
Family status no partner no child 1485 20.2 1449 24.7
no partner 1 child 1168 15.9 300 5.1
partner no child 1659 22.6 1405 24.0
partner 1 child 3037 41.3 2708 46.2
HH size 1-3 people 4747 64.6 3690 63.0
4-13 people 2602 35.4 2172 27.1
Employment not 2014 27.4 743 12.7
part-time 1313 17.9 306 5.2
full-time 4022 54.7 4813 82.1
Interview data weekday 3584 48.8 2884 49.2
weekend 3765 51.2 2978 50.8
May not add to 100 due to rounding May not add to 100 due to rounding May not add to 100 due to rounding May not add to 100 due to rounding May not add to 100 due to rounding May not add to 100 due to rounding
Womena n4748 Womena n4748 Menb n2110 Menb n2110
Characteristic (relative to) Coeff pgtz Coeff pgtz
Age 31-40yr 0.021 0.62 0.112 0.13
41-50yr 0.055 0.20 0.138 0.06
51-62yr (21-30yr) 0.034 0.48 0.108 0.17
Race non-white (white) 0.173 0.00 0.164 0.01
Ethnicity Hispanic (non-Hispanic) 0.270 0.00 0.250 0.00
Education college degree (ltcollege degree) -0.099 0.00 0.005 0.91
HH income 40,000 (lt40,000) -0.003 0.93 0.007 0.89
HH size 4-13 people (1-3 people) 0.072 0.04 -0.031 0.61
Family status no partner 1 child 0.290 0.00 0.262 0.00
partner no child 0.298 0.00 0.173 0.01
partner 1child (no partner no child) 0.391 0.00 0.213 0.00
Employment part-time -0.163 0.00 -0.225 0.03
full-time (not-employed) -0.299 0.00 -0.199 0.00
Interview data weekend (weekday) 0.182 0.00 0.359 0.00
Constant 3.338 0.00 3.011 0.00
Adj R2 a0.078 b0.049 (sampling weights used in analysis) Adj R2 a0.078 b0.049 (sampling weights used in analysis) Adj R2 a0.078 b0.049 (sampling weights used in analysis) Adj R2 a0.078 b0.049 (sampling weights used in analysis)
Objective To examine how individual, family, and
employment characteristics are associated with
time spent in daily food prep Design subjects
Logistic linear regression analysis of 2003
ATUS data of men women 21-64 years age
(n13,211) Results 65 women 36 men reported
food prep time. Women had greater odds of any
time in food prep than men. Of those reporting
any food prep time (all other variables constant)
time spent in daily food prep women28.2min/d,
men20.3min/d. Having a partner increased
womens odds and decreased men's odds of any time
in food prep. Conclusions Daily food prep time
differed by parental partner status, ethnicity,
age, and other socio-demographic characteristics.
Food prep was undertaken more by women than men
when controlling for individual, family, and
employment characteristics.

• ? household employment hours
• ? feelings of time pressure
• ? time spent in food preparation
• ? eating foods prepared away from home

Daily time in food preparation
Table 4 Daily time in food prep Table 4 Daily time in food prep Table 4 Daily time in food prep Table 4 Daily time in food prep Table 4 Daily time in food prep
Women Women Men Men
Any vs. none (logistic) n n
No time in food prep 2601 35.4 3752 64.0
Any time in food prep 4747 64.6 2110 36.0
Of those reporting any n range n range
Min/day in food prep 4748 1-654 2110 1-430
Mean (Std Dev) 56.0(51.2) 56.0(51.2) 42.4(43.7) 42.4(43.7)
Table 5 Of those reporting any time- Calculations from regression (min/d) Table 5 Of those reporting any time- Calculations from regression (min/d) Table 5 Of those reporting any time- Calculations from regression (min/d)
Characteristic Women Characteristic Women Men
No partner no child 28.2 20.3
No partner 1 child 27.6 26.4
Partner no child 37.9 24.1
Partner 1 child 41.6 25.1
Other variables held at reference categories Other variables held at reference categories Other variables held at reference categories
Womena n7349 Womena n7349 Menb n5862 Menb n5862
Characteristic (relative to) OR pgtz OR pgtz
Age 31-40yr 1.35 0.00 1.29 0.01
41-50yr 1.44 0.00 1.42 0.00
51-62yr (21-30yr) 1.92 0.00 1.43 0.00
Race non-white (white) 0.96 0.51 0.80 0.01
Ethnicity Hispanic (non-Hispanic) 1.17 0.06 0.77 0.01
Education college degree (ltcollege degree) 0.98 0.71 1.11 0.09
HH Income 40,000 (lt40,000) 0.85 0.01 0.99 0.91
HH size 4-13 people (1-3 people) 1.25 0.00 1.05 0.51
Family status no partner 1 child no partner 1 child 1.73 0.00 1.80 0.00
partner no child partner no child 1.69 0.00 0.80 0.01
partner 1child (no partner no child) 2.71 0.00 0.90 0.23
Employment part-time 0.77 0.00 0.74 0.04
full-time (not-employed) 0.66 0.00 0.63 0.00
Interview data weekend (weekday) 0.79 0.00 0.90 0.15
Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis) Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis) Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis) Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis) Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis) Pseudo R2 a0.044 b0.022 (sampling weights used in analysis)

• Descriptive statistics bivariate analysis of
  variables
• Variables grouped for categorical comparisons
• Dropped those with unknown income
• Limited to those 21-62 yr age, not full-time
  students (n13,211)
• Data examined for normality
• 2 analysis performed
• none vs. any food prep Logistic regression
• for any time in food prep Ln( daily min. in food
  prep) Linear regression
• Included variables in analytic model, 2- 3-way
  interactions
• Interacted all variables with gender rejected
  hypothesis of equality of coefficients across
  gender subsequent models run by gender
• Influence diagnostics removal of most
  influential cases made little difference in
  results, all kept for analysis

• Many reported no time in food prep (35 women,
  64 men)
• Gendered nature of food prep Women more likely
  to do any more food prep than men
• Food prep time differed by parental marital
  status, ethnicity, age, and other
  socio-demographic characteristics
• Role differences
• Women with partners have increased odds men
  decreased odds of any time in food prep
• Having children at home increase time reported
  in food prep by men women
• Smaller femalemale differences among those
  reporting any daily food prep time
• Day of week influences doing any (less likely on
  weekends) time spent in food prep (longer time
  on weekends)

• The social framework in which food prep is
  performed has implications for food assistance
  policy
• Limited time spent in food prep has nutritional
  health implications.
• If goal to understand food prep time then need to
  measure food prep as a secondary activity all
  household members time use in food prep

Acknowledgements John Cawley, Carole Bisogni,
Elaine Wethington, Cornell University Office of
Statistical Consulting, NIH 5T32 DK007 158