Skip to main content

Table 3 Main intention to treat analyses of the effect of AFLY5 intervention on potential mediators assessed immediately after the end of the intervention

From: The Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster randomised controlled trial: effect on potential mediators

Outcome Control group (reference group) Intervention group Main effect (group difference)
  Number Mean (SD) Number Mean (SD) Number Difference in means (95 % CI) P-value
Physical activity self-efficacy 1092 97.4 (12.2) 1022 97.4 (13.8) 2114 −0.2 (−1.4 to 1.0) 0.74
Fruit & vegetable self-efficacy 1093 87.2 (15.8) 1020 89.7 (14.4) 2113 2.2 (0.7 to 3.8) 0.005
Perceived maternal logistic support for physical activity 1077 9.5 (2.2) 1006 9.5 (2.3) 2083 −0.1 (−0.3 to 0.1) 0.56
Perceived paternal logistic support for physical activity 1033 9.0 (2.4) 977 9.2 (2.4) 2010 0.1 (−0.1 to 0.3) 0.45
Perceived maternal modelling of physical activity 1079 14.8 (3.6) 1006 14.8 (3.7) 2085 0.1 (−0.2 to 0.3) 0.71
Perceived paternal modelling of physical activity 1033 15.3 (3.6) 975 15.5 (3.7) 2008 0.1 (−0.2 to 0.5) 0.48
Perceived maternal limitation of sedentary behaviour 1078 11.3 (3.5) 1006 11.8 (3.4) 2084 0.5 (0.1 to 0.8) 0.01
Perceived paternal limitation of sedentary behaviour 1031 10.6 (3.5) 977 10.9 (3.5) 2008 0.4 (−0.1 to 0.8) 0.09
Perceived parental modelling of fruit and vegetable consumption 1089 33.9 (7.8) 1017 34.4 (7.9) 2106 0.7 (−0.3 to 1.6) 0.17
Knowledge 1092 7.1 (1.4) 1021 7.5 (1.5) 2113 0.5 (0.2 to 0.7) <0.001
  1. All differences in means with their 95 % CIs have been estimated using a multi-level linear regression model to account for clustering (non-independence) among children from the same school
  2. The following baseline/school stratifying covariables were included: age, gender, the baseline measure of the mediating outcome under consideration, school involvement in other health promoting activities, school area level deprivation
  3. In these analyses participants were included for each outcome if they had a follow-up measurement of that outcome; for missing baseline data we used an indicator variable as describe by White & Thompson [42], which means for each outcome participants are included even if they do not have a baseline measurement