Table 3

Regression models predicting fruit and juice intake


Step One (Personal characteristic
Step Two (Step 1 + nearest environmental variables)
Step Three (Step 1 + psychosocial variables)
Step Five (Step 1 + nearest environmental & psychosocial variables)

Variable
Coeff)
Z
P
Coeff
Z
P
Coeff
Z
P
Coeff
Z
P

BMI %tile
0.00
1.04
0.299
0.01
1.23
0.220
0.01
1.29
0.198
0.01
1.46
0.145
Age
-0.22
-1.24
0.216
-0.22
-1.26
0.207
-0.10
-0.65
0.516
-0.11
-0.72
0.474
PG (ref GED)
-0.35
-0.39
0.693
-0.07
-0.08
0.938
-0.69
-0.88
0.381
-0.47
-0.60
0.548
College
-0.99
-1.10
0.270
-0.76
-0.85
0.397
-1.22
-1.56
0.119
-1.04
-1.32
0.186
Tech College
-1.42
-1.49
0.135
-1.17
-1.26
0.209
-1.26
-1.51
0.130
-1.09
-1.33
0.182
Ethnicity (ref Anglo)
-0.49
-1.10
0.271
-0.72
-1.59
0.111
-0.38
-0.95
0.341
-1.39
-1.39
0.164
Social Desirability
0.03
1.12
0.262
0.03
1.09
0.277
0.02
0.94
0.347
0.03
0.97
0.332
Distance to Small Food Store
-
-
-
0.00
3.07
0.002

-
-
0.00
2.63
0.008
Distance to Fast Food
-
-
-
-0.00
-2.76
0.006

-
-
-0.00
-2.52
0.012
FJ Home Availability
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.27
6.37
< 0.001
0.27
6.38
< 0.001
FJ Preferences
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.06
2.80
0.005
0.05
2.31
0.021
Within Troop R2
0.0468
0.0937
0.2495
0.2877
Between Troop R2
0.0297
0.1317
0.5398
0.5380
Overall R2
0.0523
0.1064
0.2485
0.3155

Step Four:

Distance to the nearest Small Food Store (SFS) was associated with FJ preferences (z = 2.17, p = 0.030) but not availability of fruit and juice (z = 0.04, p = 0.968).

Distance to the nearest fast food restaurant was not associated with FJ preferences (z = 0.35, p = 0.724) or FJ availability (z = -0.57, p = 0.570)

Sobel test indicated that Fruit and Juice preferences partially mediated (34%) the relationship between distance to nearest Small Food Store (SFS) and low fat vegetable intake (z = 1.805, p = 0.071)

Jago et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2007 4:35   doi:10.1186/1479-5868-4-35

Open Data