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