초록 close

This study was conducted to evaluate the dietary quality of school-aged children from low-income families in comparison with those from higher income families. The socio-demographic and anthropometric data and one day 24-hour recall dietary intake data of 1,782 school-aged children were used for analysis from the data of 2001 National Health and Nutrition Survey. The children whose family had monthly household income 120% or lower than the 2001 Minimum Cost of Living were classified into Low Income Group (LIG), and the others were classified into Higher Income Group (HIG). The consumption levels of the food groups of the Korean Food Guide as well as the general nutritional status based on their weight and height, energy and nutrient intake were compared between LIG and HIG in elementary (n = 989), middle (n = 432), and high (n = 361) school-aged children, respectively. LIG tended to have lower weight, height, and BMI than HIG, but the difference was significant only in the weight and the BMI of the middle school-aged children. The energy intake of LIG didn’t differ from that of HIG, but LIG consumed a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrate and a lower percentage of energy from fat than HIG. Some micronutrient intake was lower in LIG than HIG in case of the elementary and the middle school-aged children. The average numbers of servings of milk· dairy products and fruits consumed by LIG were significantly lower than those consumed by HIG in the elementary and the middle school-aged children, and they were less than the respective recommended serving. The average number of servings of meat·fish·egg·beans consumed by LIG was lower than that consumed by HIG in the middle and the high school-aged children, and it was also less than the recommended serving. The results suggested that the diet of children from low-income families should be intervened by strategies different from the other children in order to improve the consumption level of milk·dairy products, fruits, and meat·fish·egg·beans. (Korean J Nutr 2009; 42(8): 691 ~ 701)