Skip to main content

Table 3 Weighted percentages, unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) for support for specific interventions

From: Changes in Australian community perceptions of non-communicable disease prevention: a greater role for government?

APR (95%CI)a 2018 vs 2016

Intervention

% “not far enough”a

2016 2018

Model 1

Unadjusted

Model 2

Adjustedb

Model 3

Interaction effectd

a) Plain packaging for tobacco products

29.8%

31.8%

1.06 (0.95, 1.19)

1.06 (0.95, 1.19)

NS

b) Bans on smoking in cars with children

42.8%

48.6%

1.13 (1.05, 1.23)

1.14 (1.05, 1.23)

NS

c) Lower speed limits (30 km/hr) in high pedestrian areas

14.5%

17.9%

1.23 (1.05, 1.45)

1.23 (1.04, 1.45)

NS

d) Restrictions on advertising unhealthy foods to children

58.4%

58.6%

1.00 (0.94, 1.07)

1.00 (0.94, 1.06)c

Proportion of women increased comparative to men.

35- < 55 years decreased comparative to 18 < − 35 years.

University and post-secondary education increased comparative to high school education

e) Restrictions on alcohol advertising

45.4%

42.9%

0.94 (0.87, 1.03)

0.93 (0.87, 1.01)

NS

f) Taxing soft drink

42.5%

43.9%

1.03 (0.95, 1.13)

1.02 (0.94, 1.10)c

Proportion of women increased comparative to men.

Proportion of university educated decreased relative to high school

h) Setting salt limits on processed food

55.3%

50.5%

0.91 (0.85, 0.98)

0.91 (0.85, 0.97)

NS

j) Compulsory immunisation at school entry

36.3%

31.3%

0.86 (0.78, 0.96)

0.88 (0.80, 0.98)

NS

k) Laws setting limits on working hours

22.1%

25.6%

1.16 (1.01, 1.33)

1.16 (1.01, 1.34)

NS

l) Creation of bike lanes separated from cars

41.3%

44.1%

1.07 (0.98, 1.16)

1.07 (0.98, 1.16)

NS

  1. aResponses to “For each of the following government initiatives, please tell me whether you think it shows the government going too far, not far enough or having about the right amount of involvement in helping people be healthy?”, showing percent/APR responding “Not far enough” vs combined “too far” and “about the right amount”
  2. bAdjusted for gender, age, education and area level disadvantage
  3. cAdjusted beta coefficient without two-way interactions in the model
  4. dResults for two-way interactions significant at p ≤ 0.10 when overall test for all two-way interactions significant at p ≤ 0.10