Factors affecting egg consumption in young consumers

Submitted 2020-06-11 | Accepted 2020-07-09 | Available 2020-12-01https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2020.23.mi-fpap.1-6The research was carried out on consumers aged 20 to 30 years. The survey was conducted among the young population, on a sample of 200 respondents; male (M, n = 100) and female (F, n = 100). Respondents were asked to answer three sets of questions: a) egg quality indicators; b) which are the benefits of consuming eggs compared to other animal products; and c) which are the disadvantages of consuming eggs. A Likert scale (min = 1, max = 5) was used to evaluate the responses on the factors that influence egg consumption. The respondents (M 4.50 : F 4.11; P 0.05). Interval estimation of the mean values μ in male and female populations was made. The research indicates the attributes that consumers value when choosing and buying products, which can serve as a future guide for egg producers.Keywords: consumption, egg quality, nutritional value, freshnessReferencesBao, P.P., Shu, X.O., Zheng, Y., Cai, N., Ruan, Z.X., Kai, G., Yinghao, S., Yu-Tang, G.,Wei, Z., Wei, L. (2012). Fruit, vegetable and animal intake and breast cancer risk by hormone receptor status. Nutrition Cancer, 64(6), 806-819.Barraj, L., Tran, N., Mink, P. (2009). A Comparison of Egg Consumption with Other Modifiable Coronary Heart Disease Lifestyle Risk Factors: A Relative Risk Apportionment Study. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 401-415.Bejaei, M., Wiseman, K., Cheng, K.M. (2011). Influences of demographic characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of consumers on table egg consumption in British Columbia, Canada. Poultry Science, 90(5), 1088-1095.Bertechini, A.G., Mazzucco, H. (2013). The table egg: A review. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 37(2), 115-122.Bobetić, B. (2019). The Challenges and Expectations of the EU and Poultry Production in Croatia in the Medium-Term to 2030. Proceedings of 13th Symposium “Poultry Days 2019” with International Participation, May 8 – 11, 2019, (pp. 18-23). In Croatia.Čalić, S., Friganovic, E., Maleš, V., Mustapić, A. (2011). Functional food and consumers. Practical Management, 2(2), 51-57.EBN - Egg Borad Nutritio (2019). Egg composition. Retrived December 22, 2019 from https://www.eggnutritioncenter.org/topics/nutrients-in-eggs/, accessedFernandez, M.L. (2006). Dietary cholesterol provided by eggs and plasma lipoproteins in healthy populations. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutritional and Metabolic Care, 9(1), 8-12.Garza, C., Rasmussen, K.M. (2000). Pregnancy and Lactation. In: Garrow, G.S., James, W.P.T., Ralph, A. (eds.) Human Nutrition and Dietetics (10. Ed.). Churchill Livingstone, London (pp. 437-448).Guter, M.M., Low, E.M. (2008). The British egg marketing board 1957-71-A reassessment. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 22(3), 247-265.Hasler, C.M. (2002). Functional foods: benefits, concerns and challenges - a position paper from the American Council on Science and Health. Journal of Nutrition, 132(12), 3772-3781.Kralik G., Škrtić Z., Kralik Z. (2012). Biometrika u zootehnici. Sveučilište J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku (pp. 76-81, 91-93).Kralik, I., Kralik Z., Zelić, S. (2014). Consumer preferences of table eggs. Proceedings of 49th Croatian and 9th International Agronomy Symposium. 16-21 February 2014, Faculty of Agriculture University of Josip Juraj Strossmayer in Osijek (pp. 56-160). In Croatia.Kralik, I., Zelić, A., Kralik, G. (2017). Influence of socio-demographic characteristics of examinees on egg quality awareness and consumption. Interdisciplinary management research. 19-21 May 2017, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek (pp. 1193-1205). In Croatia.Kralik, Z., Rebekic, A. (2018). Consumers preferences on the usefulness In and consumption of enriched products. Krmiva, 60(1), 17-24.Lunven, P., Le Clement de St Marcq, C., Carnovale, E., Fratoni, A. (1973). Amino acid composition of hen`s egg. British Journal of Nutrition, 30(2), 189-194.Missmer, S.A., Smith-Warner, S.A., Spiegelman, D., Yaun, S.S., Adami, H.O., Beeson, W.L. Van den Brandt, P.A., Fraser, G.E., Freudenheim, J.L., Goldbohm, R.A., Graham, S., Kushi, L.H., Miller, A.B., Potter, J.D., Rohan, T.E., Speizer, F.E., Toniolo, P., Willett, W.C., Wolk, A., Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A., Hunter, D.J. (2002). Meat and diary food consumption in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(1), 78-85.Mutungi, G., Ratliff, J., Puglisi, M., Torres-Gonzalez, M., Vaishnav, U., Leite, J. O., Quann, E., Volek, J. S., Fernandez, M. L. (2008). Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases plasma HDL cholesterol in overweight men consuming a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Journal of Nutrition, 138(2), 272-276.Patil, S.R., Cates, S., Morales, R. (2005). Consumer food safety knowledge, practices and demographic differences: Findings from a meta-analysis. Journal of Food Protection, 68(9), 1884-1894.Official Gazette 115/2006, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (2006). Rulebook on egg quality. Retrived December 22, 2019 from https://www.poslovni-savjetnik.com/propisi/pravilnik-o-kakvoci-jaja-urednicki-procisceni-tekst-nn-br-1152006-692007-i-762008Ruxton, C.H.S., Derbyshire, E., Gibson, S. (2010). Nutritional properties and health benefits of eggs. Nutrition and Food Science, 40(3), 263-279.Shin, J.Y., Xun, P., Nakamura, Y., He, K. (2013). Egg consumption in relation to cardiovascular disease risk and diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 98(1), 146-159.Sparks, N.H.C. (2006). The hen`s egg- is its role in human nutrition changing? World`s Poultry Science Journal 62(2), 308-315.Zaheer, K. (2015). An Updated Review on Chicken Eggs: Production, Consumption, Management Aspects and Nutritional Benefits to Human Health. Food and Nutrition Sciences 6(13), 1208-1220.Zelić, A., Kralik, Z., Kralik, I., Mahmutović, H. (2015). Consumer Preferences When Purchasing Table Eggs In The Area Of Tuzla City In Bosnia And Herzegovina. Krmiva, 57(2), 75-79.Zhang, B., X., Pan, M., X., Wang, L., Mo, X.F., Chen, Y.N., Lin, F.Y., Ho, S.C. (2013). Choline and betaine intake is inversely associated with breast cancer risk: a two-stage case-control study in China. Cancer Science, 104(2), 250-258.

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks