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