Who Misses Lunch on School Days in Canada?

Figures & data

Table 1. Sociodemographic, health and lifestyle characteristics of Canadian children aged 6–17 years on school days in the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS 2015 – Nutrition) (n = 2,991 children)^a.

Characteristic	All children, n = 2,991	Lunch consumers, n = 2,818	Lunch non-consumers, n = 173
All children, %	100	94.0 ± 0.8	6.0 ± 0.8
Age, mean years	11.6 ± 0.1	11.5 ± 0.1	13.3 ± 0.5
Age group, %
6–13 years	64.5 ± 0.9	95.8 ± 0.9	4.2 ± 0.9
14–17 years	35.5 ± 0.9	90.7 ± 1.4	9.4 ± 1.4
Sex, %
Male	51.1 ± 1.1	94.6 ± 1.0	5.4 ± 1.0
Female	49.0 ± 1.1	93.4 ± 1.4	6.6 ± 1.4
Food security status^b, %
Food secure	87.6 ± 1.0	94.7 ± 0.8	5.3 ± 0.8
Food insecure	11.1 ± 0.9	90.2 ± 2.9	9.8 ± 2.9
Missing food security	1.3 ± 0.3	78.2 ± 9.9	21.8 ± 9.9
Parental educational attainment, %
High school diploma or less	16.7 ± 1.1	88.2 ± 1.9	11.8 ± 1.9
College/trade diploma	38.9 ± 1.4	97.0 ± 0.6	3.0 ± 0.6
University degree	44.4 ± 1.6	93.6 ± 1.6	6.5 ± 1.9
Location of residence, %
Rural	19.0 ± 1.3	94.3 ± 1.4	5.7 ± 1.4
Urban	81.0 ± 1.3	93.9 ± 1.0	6.1 ± 1.0
Ethnicity, %
White	68.1 ± 1.6	93.5 ± 1.1	6.5 ± 1.1
Nonwhite	28.2 ± 1.6	95.0 ± 1.2	5.0 ± 1.2
Missing	3.8 ± 0.4	94.6 ± 2.1	5.4 ± 2.2
Immigrant^d, %
Non-Immigrant	88.7 ± 1.0	94.0 ± 0.9	6.0 ± 0.9
Immigrant	11.3 ± 1.0	93.5 ± 2.4	6.5 ± 2.4
Current smoker^e, %
Nonsmoker	97.4 ± 0.5	92.2 ± 1.1	7.9 ± 1.1
Smoker	2.6 ± 0.5	X	X
Supplement use, %
No	62.5 ± 1.5	93.4 ± 1.1	6.6 ± 1.1
Yes	37.5 ± 1.5	95.0 ± 1.1	5.0 ± 1.1
Weight status^f, %
Normal weight	67.7 ± 1.4	93.5 ± 1.2	6.5 ± 1.2
Overweight/obese	32.3 ± 1.4	94.2 ± 1.2	5.8 ± 1.2

Values are displayed as survey-weighted proportions (%) ± Standard Error (SE) or as mean age (years) ± SE. Proportions (percentages) are summed sideways for the third and fourth columns since they represent the percentage of children who consumed and missed lunch within each sociodemographic or lifestyle group (e.g., the proportion of children aged 6–13 years who consumed and missed lunch).

^aThe sample (n = 2,991 children) includes children with a first dietary recall occurring on a school day and children who had their first dietary recall on a weekend/non-school day and their second dietary recall occurring on a school day. If a child reported a dietary recall on two school days, this analysis only considered the first dietary recall day when classifying them as a ‘lunch consumer’ or ‘lunch non-consumer.’

^bMissing data on 38 children (food security status).

^cMissing data for 3 children (education).

^dMissing data for 2 children (immigrant status).

^eSmoking status was asked to respondents aged 12 years and older (n = 1,624 children, missing data on 3 children). Cells marked with an “X” are blanked due to minimum cell size requirements for releasing descriptive statistics from Statistics Canada (cross-tabulation of smoker and children who missed lunch).

^fApplicable to respondents who had their weights and heights measured (n = 2,653 children, missing data on 227 children). This derived variable classifies children and youth aged 5 to 17 years (61 to 215 months) as “underweight,” “normal,” “overweight” or “obese” according to the age-and-sex specific body mass index (BMI) cutoff points as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Table 2. Associations between Canadian children’s demographic, socioeconomic and health characteristics and the odds of not consuming lunch in the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS 2015 – Nutrition)^a

	Unadjusted models n = 2,991		Age and sex adjusted models n = 2,991		Fully adjusted model^b n = 2,985
	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Age, in years	1.17	1.07, 1.29	1.17	1.07, 1.29	1.24	1.04, 1.48
Sex
Male	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00
Female	1.25	0.68, 2.27	1.25	0.68, 2.30	1.27	0.68, 2.40
Food security status
Food secure	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
Food insecure	1.96	0.99, 3.86	2.14	1.09, 4.22	2.03	1.01, 4.10
Missing food security	5.00	1.25, 20.0	3.07	0.77, 12.2	3.59	0.85, 15.10
Parental education
College/trade diploma or certificate	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
High school diploma or less	4.28	2.44, 7.52	4.27	2.43, 7.54	4.05	2.24, 7.33
University degree	2.21	1.11, 4.40	2.23	1.11, 4.47	2.36	1.16, 4.82
Relative parental income, in deciles^c	0.96	0.87, 1.06	0.95	0.86, 1.05	0.95	0.86, 1.07
Location of residence
Rural	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
Urban	1.06	0.58, 1.93	1.03	0.56, 1.90	0.95	0.50, 1.80
White/European
Nonwhite	1.00		1.00		1.00
White	1.32	0.69, 2.51	1.40	0.75, 2.63	1.80	0.90, 3.59
Immigrant
Non-Immigrant	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
Immigrant	1.10	0.42, 2.89	0.95	0.37, 2.42	0.77	0.31, 1.91
Current smoker
Nonsmoker	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
Smoker, daily or occasional	X	X	2.86	1.14, 7.15	2.71	1.04, 7.05
Missing smoking status	X	X	1.53	0.48, 4.91	1.51	0.46, 4.90
Supplement use
No	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00
Yes	0.74	0.41, 1.31	0.81	0.45, 1.48	0.87	0.47, 1.60
Weight status (measured)
Not overweight/obese	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
Overweight/obese	0.88	0.49, 1.58	0.83	0.47, 1.49	0.79	0.43, 1.41
Underweight	X	X	1.15	0.22, 6.03	1.21	0.22, 6.58

Values represent odds ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) derived from simple and multivariable logistic regression models. Bold print indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). Cells marked with an “X” are blanked due to minimum cell size requirements for releasing descriptive statistics from Statistics Canada.

^aIncludes children with a dietary recall occurring on a school day on the first or second day (n = 2,991 children). Data are weighted to the Canadian population.

^bAdjusted for children’s sex, age, location of residence, ethnicity, immigration status, parental income, educational attainment, food security status, smoking status, supplement use, and child’s weight status. A separate answer category (for respondents who did not provide an answer to the question, i.e. “missing”) was created for the ethnicity, food security, smoking and weight status variables to avoid dropping these respondents in the multivariable linear regression models. Sample sizes for models vary slightly due to a small number of missing cases for the other covariates.

^cRelative parental income is based on the adjusted ratio of the respondent’s total household income to the low-income cutoff corresponding to their household and community size. The relative parental income can take a value of one to ten and provides, for each respondent, a relative measure of their household income to the household incomes of all other respondents.