Skip to main content

Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted mean (sd) or proportion adiposity values (WHO cut-offs) and intervention effect post intervention (2009)

From: Cluster randomised trial of a school-community child health promotion and obesity prevention intervention: findings from the evaluation of fun ‘n healthy in Moreland!

 

DESCRIPTIVE

MODELS

Comparison

Intervention

Crude modela

Adjusted modelb

N

mean or %

sd

N

mean or %

sd

Comparative statisticc

Comparative statisticc

95% CI

p

ICC

weight (kg)

1439

31.87

10.52

1320

31.38

10.33

−0.98

−0.56

−1.40

to

0.29

0.20

0.007

bmi

1437

17.95

3.16

1320

17.82

3.03

−0.24

−0.16

−0.51

to

0.18

0.36

0.010

bmizscored

1425

0.72

1.12

1318

0.68

1.16

−0.04

−0.05

−0.19

to

0.08

0.44

0.008

waist (cm)e

1437

63.1

9.28

1326

62.87

8.81

−0.64

−0.72

−2.17

to

0.74

0.33

0.038

overweight/obesed

1421

36.7%

 

1315

35.1%

 

0.90

0.96

0.77

to

1.20

0.72

0.003

obesed

1421

12.1%

 

1315

13.5%

 

1.10

1.10

0.80

to

1.51

0.57

0.004

  1. aAdjusted for mean weight at baseline
  2. bAdjusted for school mean adiposity score at baseline, age, sex, SEP(maternal education, SEIFA), ethnicity (only English spoken at home)
  3. cOdds ratio for binary outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes
  4. dWHO reference and cut-off points
  5. eBaseline school mean bmi z-score used as proxy as waist not measured at baseline
  6. Nsample size
  7. ICCintra-cluster (intra-school) correlation coefficient
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us