Skip to main content

Table 4 Customer attitudes and purchase survey data before and after implementing “Waupaca Eating Smart”

From: Evaluation of a pilot healthy eating intervention in restaurants and food stores of a rural community: a randomized community trial

Variable

Community

Time

Community effect(Intervention vs. comparison)

Time effect (Post-test vs. pretest)

Intervention effect (Community x time)

Pretest

Post-test

  

Mean(SD)/%

Mean(SD)/%

Adjusted B/OR

P

Adjusted B/OR

P

Adjusted B/OR

P

Restaurant Customer Data (N=721)

         

Satisfaction with fruit/vegetable choices, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2.41 (1.18)

2.80 (1.18)

-.18a

.589

30 a

.004

-.01a

.975

Comparison

2.61 (1.11)

2.96 (1.08)

Satisfaction with low-calorie choices, Mean (SD)

Intervention

1.76 (1.25)

2.34 (1.23)

-.077a

.726

.42 a

.022

.07a

.684

Comparison

1.88 (1.27)

2.36 (1.14)

Did you order any food promoted by materials/signs, %

Intervention

30.9

37.0

.83b

.717

.52 b

.045

2.23b

.094

Comparison

42.7

30.8

How healthy was last meal, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2.08 (1.30)

2.16 (1.41)

.06a

.849

.13a

.322

-.20a

.189

Comparison

2.00 (1.35)

2.23 (1.35)

Store Customer Data (N=601)

         

Satisfaction with fruit/vegetable choices available at store, Mean (SD)

Intervention

3.01 (.91)

3.23 (.81)

-.20 a

.000

-.09a

.663

.35a

.147

Comparison

3.19 (.78)

3.10 (.93)

Satisfaction with promotion of fruit and vegetable choices, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2052 (1.05)

2.74 (1.00)

-.09 a

.016

-.10a

.832

.36a

.458

Comparison

2.57 (1.07)

2.48 (1.18)

Satisfaction with selection of low-calorie choices available at store, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2.43 (1.07)

2.58 (1.03)

-.18 a

.001

-.12a

.633

.28a

.353

Comparison

2.57 (1.02)

2.45 (1.10)

Satisfaction with promotion of low-calorie products, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2.10 (1.13)

2.25 (1.09)

.01a

.499

-.07a

.842

.26a

.474

Comparison

2.04 (1.11)

1.96 (1.17)

Did you purchase any food promoted by materials/signs, %

Intervention

28.6

27.1

.73 b

.000

1.39b

.157

.64b

.299

Comparison

34.8

44.7

How healthy was overall food purchase, Mean (SD)

Intervention

2.16 (1.26)

2.56 (1.05)

-.42 a

.000

.01a

.945

.35 a

.022

Comparison

2.54 (1.07)

2.58 (1.19)

  1. aAdjusted coefficients (B) and p values are based on multiple linear regression models with cluster option (cluster variable = outlet where data came from). For restaurant data, models were adjusted for age, gender, education, residency, meal (lunch/dinner), day (weekend/weekday), and celebrating (yes/no). For store data, models were adjusted for age, gender, education, residency, day (weekend/weekday).
  2. bAdjusted odds rations (AOR) and p values are based on logistic regression models with cluster option (cluster variable = outlet where data came from). For restaurant data, models were adjusted for age, gender, education, residency, meal (lunch/dinner), day (weekend/weekday), and celebrating (yes/no). For store data, models were adjusted for age, gender, education, residency, day (weekend/weekday).
  3. Note. Significant interaction of the community and time effect would indicate changes overtime in intervention community compared to the comparison community. A significant interaction effect would suggest the campaign significantly impacted the outcome in the intervention compared to the comparison community.
  4. Bold font indicates B regression coefficients or odds ratios statistically significant at p<=0.05.