Skip to main content

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics (mean ± SD, frequency (%)) for the total sample and subgroups

From: Explaining the effects of a point-of-purchase nutrition-information intervention in university canteens: a structural equation modelling analysis

    Total sample (n = 220) a People with low knowledge and high intention (n = 70) People with high knowledge and high intention (n = 44)
Mediator Effect on energy intake Mean ± SD 1.10 ± 147 −27.88 ± 132 −30.66 ± 126
  Increase in energy intake Frequency (%) 5 9 5
  Maintenance of high energy intake   17 10 18
  Maintenance of moderate energy intake   55 57 59
  Maintenance of low or recommended energy intake   16 16 11
  Decrease in energy intake   6 9 7
  Effect on attitude Mean ± SD −0.69 ± 1.34 −0.61 ± 1.15 −0.64 ± 1.35
  Negative change in attitude Frequency (%) 10 7 2
  Maintenance of low attitude   23 19 25
  Maintenance of moderate attitude   34 40 32
  Maintenance of high attitude   5 4 7
  Positive change in attitude   27 30 34
  Effect on subjective knowledge Mean ± SD −0.05 ± 0.94 −0.12 ± 0.99 −0.07 ± 0.71
  Negative change in knowledge Frequency (%) 10 11 11
  Maintenance of low knowledge   11 13 9
  Maintenance of moderate knowledge   23 30 14
  Maintenance of high knowledge   8 6 5
  Positive change in knowledge   49 40 61
  Use of information b Mean ± SD 2.90 ± 1.51 3.03 ± 1.47 3.21 ± 1.52
  Never Frequency (%) 27 24 23
  Rarely   20 16 14
  Occasionally   15 17 14
  Sometimes   24 27 30
  Regularly   10 13 16
  Often   4 1 5
  Always   1 1 0
  Subjective understanding of information b Mean ± SD 4.54 ± 1.25 4.54 ± 1.23 4.45 ± 1.17
  Totally disagree Frequency (%) 2 1 0
  Disagree   5 3 5
  Rather disagree   11 13 16
  Neither agree, nor disagree   30 33 34
  Rather agree   26 27 25
  Agree   22 17 18
  Totally agree   4 6 2
  Objective understanding of information Mean ± SD 10.19 ± 2.25 9.63 ± 2.29 10.32 ± 1.91
  Liking of information b Mean ± SD 4.35 ± 1.06 4.43 ± 1.02 4.56 ± 1.00
  Not like at all Frequency (%) 2 3 0
  Moderately dislike   3 1 5
  Slightly dislike   12 9 5
  Neutral   34 34 34
  Slightly like   39 41 39
  Moderately like   11 11 18
  Like very much   0 0 0
Moderator Objective nutrition knowledge Mean ± SD 9.10 ± 1.53 7.03 ± 1.65 11.92 ± 1.76
  Intention to change diet b Mean ± SD 4.65 ± 1.16 5.53 ± 0.63 5.44 ± 0.58
  Very unlikely Frequency (%) 2 0 0
  Unlikely   3 0 0
  Rather unlikely   9 0 0
  Neutral   29 0 0
  Rather likely   35 54 59
  Likely   18 37 34
  Very likely   4 9 7
  1. aFour individuals were removed from the sample because of incomplete information, leaving a final sample of 220 valid cases.
  2. b Distributional labels for the response categories “2”, “3”, “5”,”6” were not present on the scales at data collection, but are included in the table for clarity of presentation.