The effects of a controlled worksite environmental intervention on determinants of dietary behavior and self-reported fruit, vegetable and fat intake

Table 3 Results of linear regression analyses regarding fruit, vegetable and fat intake

Outcome measure	3 months Difference in change^a (95% CI)	p	12 months Difference in change (95% CI)	p
Fruit intake ^b
crude	0.96 (0.90; 1.03)	0.23	1.04 (0.97; 1.12)	0.24
adjusted	0.97 (0.91; 1.09)	0.34	1.05 (0.98; 1.12)	0.17
Vegetable intake
crude	2.8 (-9.0; 14.5)	0.64	1.6 (-9.8; 13.1)	0.78
adjusted	2.5 (-9.4; 14.4)	0.68	1.4 (-10.1; 12.9)	0.24
Fat intake
crude	0.31 (-0.20; 0.83)	0.23	0.34 (-0.26; 0.93)	0.26
adjusted	0.30 (-0.22; 0.82)	0.25	0.28 (-0.32; 0.88)	0.35
Subgroup analyses
Fat intake & bringing lunch ^c	-0.25 (-1.02; 0.52)	0.52	-0.08 (-1.00; 0.87)	0.86
Fat intake & not bringing lunch ^d	0.77 (0.09; 1.45)	0.03*	0.62 (-0.13; 1.37)	0.11

^a A positive difference in change indicates a change in favor of the intervention group, except for fat-intake where a negative difference is favorable (= decrease in fat). ^b Analyses on fruit intake based on log transformed data. ^c Bringing own lunch to work 5 days of the week. ^d Bringing lunch to less than 5 days of the week. Crude = linear regression model, adjusted for baseline value of the outcome measure and group allocation (= company). Adjusted = crude regression model, adjusted for gender, BMI, smoking and alcoholic units/wk at baseline. * Significant on p = .05 level

ISSN: 1471-2458