Table 3

Results of linear regression analyses regarding fruit, vegetable and fat intake

Outcome measure

3 months Difference in changea (95% CI)

p

12 months Difference in change (95% CI)

p


Fruit intake b

crude

0.96 (0.90; 1.03)

0.23

1.04 (0.97; 1.12)

0.24

adjusted

0.97 (0.91; 1.09)

0.34

1.05 (0.98; 1.12)

0.17

Vegetable intake

crude

2.8 (-9.0; 14.5)

0.64

1.6 (-9.8; 13.1)

0.78

adjusted

2.5 (-9.4; 14.4)

0.68

1.4 (-10.1; 12.9)

0.24

Fat intake

crude

0.31 (-0.20; 0.83)

0.23

0.34 (-0.26; 0.93)

0.26

adjusted

0.30 (-0.22; 0.82)

0.25

0.28 (-0.32; 0.88)

0.35

Subgroup analyses

Fat intake & bringing lunch c

-0.25 (-1.02; 0.52)

0.52

-0.08 (-1.00; 0.87)

0.86

Fat intake & not bringing lunch d

0.77 (0.09; 1.45)

0.03*

0.62 (-0.13; 1.37)

0.11


a A positive difference in change indicates a change in favor of the intervention group, except for fat-intake where a negative difference is favorable (= decrease in fat). b Analyses on fruit intake based on log transformed data. c Bringing own lunch to work 5 days of the week. d Bringing lunch to less than 5 days of the week. Crude = linear regression model, adjusted for baseline value of the outcome measure and group allocation (= company). Adjusted = crude regression model, adjusted for gender, BMI, smoking and alcoholic units/wk at baseline. * Significant on p = .05 level

Engbers et al. BMC Public Health 2006 6:253   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-253

Open Data