Table 1.
Characteristics of daughters and mothers and daughters’ outcomes at the baseline visit (total, by treatment group)
| Characteristic | Full sample | Dyad members living together | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (N = 149) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
Intervention (n = 79) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
Control (n = 70) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
p | Total (n = 95) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
Intervention (n = 57) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
Control (n = 38) Mean ± SD or n (%) |
p | |
| Daughter’s characteristics | ||||||||
| Age (years) | 16.7 ± 3.0 | 16.3 ± 2.7 | 17.2 ± 3.3 | .093 | 16.3 ± 2.9 | 15.9 ± 2.7 | 16.8 ± 3.1 | .180 |
| <19 | 116 (77.9) | 66 (56.9) | 50 (43.1) | .113 | 79 (83.2) | 49 (86.0) | 30 (78.9) | |
| ≥19 | 33 (22.1) | 13 (39.4) | 20 (60.6) | 16 (16.8) | 8 (14.0) | 8 (21.1) | ||
| Race (self-identified as best applies) | .725a | .606a | ||||||
| American Indian | 118 (79.2) | 60 (75.9) | 58 (82.9) | 72 (75.8) | 40 (70.2) | 32 (84.2) | ||
| White | 8 (5.4) | 6 (7.6) | 2 (2.9) | 7 (7.4) | 6 (10.5) | 1 (2.6) | ||
| Black/African American | 14 (9.4) | 9 (11.4) | 5 (7.1) | 10 (10.5) | 7 (12.3) | 3 (7.9) | ||
| Hispanic/Latino | 2 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.4) | 2 (2.1) | 1 (1.8) | 1 (2.6) | ||
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 2 (1.3) | 1 (1.3) | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Other | 5 (3.4) | 2 (2.5) | 3 (4.3) | 3 (3.2) | 2 (3.5) | 1 (2.6) | ||
| Education | .109 | .709 | ||||||
| In school | 133 (89.3) | 74 (93.7) | 59 (84.3) | 87 (91.6) | 53 (93.0) | 34 (89.5) | ||
| Out of school | 16 (10.7) | 5 (6.3) | 11 (15.7) | 8 (8.4) | 4 (7.0) | 4 (10.5) | ||
| Educational attainment | .473 | .933 | ||||||
| Less than high school | 105 (70.5) | 59 (74.7) | 46 (65.7) | 74 (77.9) | 45 (78.9) | 29 (76.3) | ||
| High school graduate/GED | 21 (14.1) | 9 (11.4) | 12 (17.1) | 10 (10.5) | 6 (10.5) | 4 (10.5) | ||
| Beyond high school | 23 (15.4) | 11 (13.9) | 12 (17.1) | 11 (11.6) | 6 (10.5) | 5 (13.2) | ||
| Marital status | NA | NA | ||||||
| In union (married/cohabiting) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Not in union | 149 (100) | 79 (100) | 70 (100) | 95 (100) | 57 (100) | 38 (100) | ||
| Employment status | .714 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Working | 41 (27.7) | 23 (29.5) | 18 (25.7) | 27 (28.7) | 16 (28.6) | 11 (28.9) | ||
| Not working | 107 (72.3) | 55 (70.5) | 52 (74.3) | 67 (71.3) | 40 (71.4) | 27 (71.1) | ||
| Mother’s characteristics | ||||||||
| Age (years) | 44.14 ± 9.29 | 43.30 ± 8.35 | 45.09 ± 10.22 | .242 | 43.81 ± 7.11 | 42.81 ± 6.34 | 45.34 ± 7.97 | .089 |
| Educational attainment | .086 | .205a | ||||||
| Less than high school | 5 (3.4) | 3 (3.8) | 2 (2.9) | 3 (3.2) | 2 (3.5) | 1 (2.6) | ||
| High school graduate/GED | 20 (13.4) | 6 (7.6) | 14 (20.0) | 11 (11.6) | 4 (7.0) | 7 (18.4) | ||
| Beyond high school | 124 (83.2) | 70 (88.6) | 54 (77.1) | 81 (85.3) | 51 (89.5) | 30 (78.9) | ||
| Marital status | .067 | .831 | ||||||
| In union (married/cohabiting) | 87 (58.4) | 52 (65.8) | 35 (50.0) | 59 (62.1) | 36 (63.2) | 23 (60.5) | ||
| Not in union | 62 (41.6) | 27 (34.2) | 35 (50.0) | 36 (37.9) | 21 (36.8) | 15 (39.5) | ||
| Employment | .157 | .442 | ||||||
| Working | 103 (69.6) | 59 (74.7) | 44 (63.8) | 75 (78.9) | 47 (82.5) | 28 (78.9) | ||
| Not working | 45 (30.4) | 20 (25.3) | 25 (36.2) | 20 (21.1) | 10 (17.5) | 10 (26.3) | ||
| Household food security | 1.000 | .827 | ||||||
| Secure | 91 (61.9) | 48 (62.3) | 43 (61.4) | 62 (65.3) | 38 (66.7) | 24 (63.2) | ||
| Insecure | 56 (38.1) | 29 (37.7) | 27 (38.6) | 33 (34.7) | 19 (33.3) | 14 (36.8) | ||
| Daughter’s outcomesb | ||||||||
| Self-efficacy for healthy living | .878 | .311 | ||||||
| Healthy eating subscale | 29.72 ± 9.61 | 29.83 ± 9.78 | 29.59 ± 9.48 | 31.07 ± 9.34 | 32.88 ± 9.13 | 29.88 ± 9.65 | ||
| Healthy eating behaviors | .958 | .830 | ||||||
| Vegetable subscale | 5.50 ± 1.51 | 5.49 ± 3.90 | 5.52 ± 4.20 | 5.48 ± 4.04 | 5.41 ± 3.74 | 5.59 ± 4.49 | ||
aFisher–Freeman–Halton exact test.
bThe possible range of response for self-efficacy for health living was 5–50 for the healthy eating subscale score. For healthy eating behaviors, the range of response was 0–24 for the vegetable subscale score.