Primary regressor Community EH (ref: high EH) | Model 1: promotional/incentivising policies‡ | Model 2: limiting/restrictive policies§ | Model 3: changing business practices¶ |
---|---|---|---|
Coefficient (95% CI)†† | Coefficient (95% CI)†† | Coefficient (95% CI)†† | |
Low EH | 0.010 (−0.115 to 0.135) | 0.103 (−0.068 to 0.274) | 0.041 (−0.107 to 0.189) |
Intermediate EH | −0.014 (−0.103 to 0.074) | −0.013 (−0.148 to 0.122) | 0.048 (−0.069 to 0.166) |
Control variables | |||
Political affiliation (ref: Democrat) | |||
Republican | −0.205 (−0.326 to −0.085)** | −0.350 (−0.504 to −0.196)*** | −0.343 (−0.476 to −0.209)*** |
Other political party/affiliation | −0.054 (−0.152 to 0.045) | −0.077 (−0.202 to 0.049) | −0.115 (−0.224 to −0.006)* |
Sex (ref: male) | |||
Female | 0.179 (0.094 to 0.264)*** | 0.203 (0.093 to 0.313)*** | 0.145 (0.049 to 0.240)** |
Age (continuous) | −0.003 (−0.006 to −0.000)* | −0.003 (−0.006 to 0.001) | 0.001 (−0.002 to 0.004) |
Race (ref: white) | |||
African-American | 0.062 (−0.083 to 0.207) | 0.023 (−0.165 to 0.211) | 0.113 (−0.050 to 0.276) |
Hispanic | 0.058 (−0.051 to 0.167) | 0.066 (−0.089 to 0.220) | 0.139 (0.005 to 0.274)* |
Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.127 (−0.005 to 0.260) | 0.239 (0.004 to 0.474)* | 0.040 (−0.164 to 0.244) |
Income (ref: <$20 000) | |||
$20 000–$39 999 | 0.087 (−0.045 to 0.219) | −0.080 (−0.228 to 0.069) | 0.009 (−0.120 to 0.138) |
$40 000–$59 999 | 0.052 (−0.094 to 0.198) | −0.040 (−0.214 to 0.134) | 0.041 (−0.110 to 0.192) |
$60 000–$79 999 | 0.108 (−0.051 to 0.266) | 0.013 (−0.184 to 0.211) | 0.128 (−0.043 to 0.300) |
$80 000–$99 999 | 0.120 (−0.025 to 0.265) | −0.039 (−0.278 to 0.201) | −0.030 (−0.238 to 0.177) |
$100 000 + | −0.146 (−0.318 to 0.026) | −0.253 (−0.456 to −0.051)* | −0.190 (−0.366 to −0.014)* |
Independent variables | |||
Believes that obesity among Los Angeles County adults is a serious problem (ref: does not believe) | |||
Believes | 0.261 (0.166 to 0.356)*** | 0.356 (0.244 to 0.468)*** | 0.275 (0.178 to 0.372)*** |
Factors believed to play a larger role in determining an individual's obesity status (ref: both) | |||
Individual | −0.195 (−0.350 to −0.040)* | −0.376 (−0.558 to −0.194) | −0.212 (−0.369 to −0.054)** |
Environmental | 0.025 (−0.102 to 0.152) | −0.097 (−0.069 to 0.262) | 0.063 (−0.081 to 0.206) |
Health status (ref: excellent) | |||
Very good/good | 0.071 (−0.054 to 0.195) | −0.043 (−0.189 to 0.102) | 0.034 (−0.092 to 0.160) |
Fair/poor | 0.130 (−0.037 to 0.297) | 0.062 (−0.125 to 0.249) | 0.057 (−0.105 to 0.219) |
Weight status (ref: overweight/obese) | |||
Normal/underweight | 0.086 (−0.002 to 0.174) | 0.064 (−0.053 to 0.180) | 0.057 (−0.045 to 0.158) |
Frequency reading nutritional/calorie information posted on food packages (ref: not “some/none of the time”) | |||
All/most of the time | 0.056 (−0.029 to 0.142) | 0.211 (0.102 to 0.321)*** | 0.173 (0.078 to 0.267)*** |
Ease of finding unhealthy foods (ref: not very easy) | |||
Very easy | −0.017 (−0.123 to 0.088) | 0.056 (−0.093 to 0.205) | 0.030 (−0.099 to 0.159) |
Ease of finding healthy foods (continuous) | 0.073 (−0.123 to 0.088)* | 0.123 (0.041 to 0.204)** | 0.020 (−0.050 to 0.091) |
Fruit and vegetable consumption (continuous) | 0.022 (−0.012 to 0.057) | −0.041 (−0.080 to −0.002)* | −0.022 (−0.056 to 0.012) |
Non-diet soda consumption (continuous) | −0.001 (−0.014 to 0.012) | −0.009 (−0.027 to 0.009) | −0.006 (−0.021 to 0.009) |
Fast-food restaurant meal consumption (continuous) | −0.008 (−0.033 to 0.017) | −0.022 (−0.054 to 0.011) | −0.007 (−0.035 to 0.021) |
Sit-down restaurant meal consumption (continuous) | 0.015 (−0.012 to 0.042) | −0.020 (−0.015 to 0.055) | 0.017 (−0.13 to 0.048) |
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
†Listwise deletion employed in all models.
‡(F=5.80, p=0.0000); average of a four-point Likert scale (1=favour strongly, 2=favour somewhat, 3=oppose somewhat, 4=oppose strongly) of the following policies and practices: ‘attracting more supermarkets selling fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income communities; attracting more farmers markets and produce stands selling fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income communities; increasing the availability of fresh drinking water at local parks, schools and other public areas; proving local grocery and convenience stores with tax credits and other incentives to encourage sale of healthy foods and to reduce the number of unhealthy foods and snacks sold’.
§(F=7.59, p=0.0000); average of a four-point Likert scale (1=favour strongly, 2=favour somewhat, 3=oppose somewhat, 4=oppose strongly) of the following policies and practices: ‘limiting container sizes in which sodas and other sugary drinks can be sold in restaurants, snack bars, movie theatres and sports arenas to no more than 16 ounces; prohibiting supermarkets from selling unhealthy food items like candy products, in their check-out aisles; limiting the number of fast food restaurants that a community can have; strengthening school nutrition standards to limit the types of unhealthy foods and sugary drinks sold in the schools; reducing access to unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks in vending machines in public building and worksites’.
¶(F=5.78, p=0.0000); average of a four-point Likert scale (1=very important, 2= somewhat important, 3=not too important, 4=not at all important) of the following policies and practices: ‘food and beverage companies changing the ingredients changing the ingredients in their products to reduce their calories; food and beverage companies changing the ingredients changing the ingredients in their products to reduce their sodium and salt content; food and beverage companies stop advertising unhealthy products (like fast food and sodas) on TV shows that kids watch frequently’.
††Provides an estimate of the expected increase in the dependent variable for a 1 unit increase relevant to the referent group.
EH, economic hardship.