Skip to main content

Table 2 Multivariable-Adjusted Changes (95% CI) in Calories Purchased by Adults, Adolescents, and Children After Calorie Labeling in McDonald’s Restaurants Compared to Other Fast-Food Restaurants

From: Evaluation of the impact of calorie labeling on McDonald’s restaurant menus: a natural experiment

 

McDonald’s

Other Chains

Difference-in-differences (adjusted)b

Prea

Posta

Change (crude)

Change (adjusted)b

Prea

Posta

Change (crude)

Change (adjusted)b

Adults

718 (474)

630 (425)

−89 (− 168, −10)

−80 (−155, −4)

888 (455)

816 (468)

−72 (−127, −16)

−60 (−116, −5)

−19 (−112, 75)

Adolescentsc,d

759 (488)

709 (408)

−51 (− 123, 21)

−40 (− 106, 26)

756 (427)

739 (459)

−17 (−82, 48)

1 (− 48, 50)

−49 (− 136, 38)

Childrend

719 (369)

585 (280)

− 134 (− 214, − 53)

− 158 (− 231, −86)

766 (345)

585 (345)

− 180 (−291, − 69)

− 159 (− 257, − 61)

13 (− 108, 135)

  1. aMean (SD) presented
  2. bAdjusted for age (years, continuous), sex (female [ref], male), race/ethnicity (white [ref], black, Asian, Hispanic, other), BMI (kg/m2, continuous), city (Boston [ref], Hartford, Providence, Springfield), and restaurant chain (Burger King [ref], KFC, Subway, Wendy’s). Restaurant location was included as a random effect
  3. cControl restaurants included Burger King (ref), Wendy’s, Subway, and Dunkin’ Donuts
  4. dAdjusted for BMI-for-age-and-sex-z score (continuous) instead of BMI