Dietary Differences by Job Type and Industry Among Workers in Japan During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

  1. Rie Tanaka
  2. Toshihide Sakuragi
  3. Mayumi Tsuji
  4. Seiichiro Tateishi
  5. Ayako Hino
  6. Akira Ogami
  7. Masako Nagata
  8. Shinya Matsuda
  9. Yoshihisa Fujino
  10. for the CORoNa Work Project

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced people to change their lifestyles. We examined dietary differences by job type and industry among workers during the pandemic. This cross-sectional study was conducted using data an internet survey. Job type and industry were classified into 3 and 22 groups, respectively. Dietary behaviors were assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Logistic regression analysis nested in the workplace prefecture was conducted. Workers involved in jobs that required communication with people were more likely to skip breakfast (odds ratio [OR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.24) and had a lower meal frequency (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.17-1.34) than workers engaged in desk work. Manual workers were more likely to eat fast food or meals (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.17) than were those engaged in desk work. Workers in the newspaper, magazine, television, radio, advertising, and other mass media industries were more likely to skip breakfast (OR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.82-3.24) and have a lower meal frequency (OR: 3.90, 95% CI: 2.87-5.28) than workers in public offices and organizations. These results were partially consistent with trends reported before the pandemic. Further studies should be conducted to clarify the causes of differences in dietary behavior among workers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/15598276241279221
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262645: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study protocol has been described elsewhere (10) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan.
    Consent: Informed consent was obtained from the participants’ through the website.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Logistic regression analysis was performed using Stata/IC 14.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) to analyze the association between dietary behaviors and job type or industry.
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262645v1 on medRxiv