Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Immigr Minor Health. 2011 Apr;13(2):299–308. doi: 10.1007/s10903-010-9360-6

Table 4.

Association between site and birth place with FGP awareness and knowledge among Latinas in the US

Outcome variables n OR 95% Confidence interval
Lower Upper
What is FGP
 CT&CA US 71 1.117 .324 3.847
 CT&CA other places 132 .667 .263 1.689
 TX US 27 .293 .088 .980
 TX other places 128 1.000
Fruits
 CT&CA US 70 2.438 .946 6.286
 CT&CA other places 127 .679 .373 1.233
 TX US 27 .543 .213 1.386
 TX other places 129 1.000
Vegetables
 CT&CA US 70 1.204 .655 2.214
 CT&CA other places 127 .771 .468 1.272
 TX US 27 1.068 .452 2.521
 TX other places 127 1.000
Grains & cereals
 CT&CA US 70 1.764 .866 3.593
 CT&CA other places 127 .389 .171 .885
 TX US 27 1.158 .394 3.403
 TX other places 128 1.000
Dairy
 CT&CA US 71 1.527 .843 2.768
 CT&CA other places 129 1.150 .703 1.881
 TX US 27 .950 .414 2.181
 TX other places 128 1.000
Meat & alternates
 CT&CA US 71 .679 .378 1.221
 CT&CA other places 130 1.204 .728 1.990
 TX US 27 .510 .218 1.192
 TX other places 129 1.000
FGP scorea
 CT&CA US 70 2.719 1.123 6.584
 CT&CA other places 122 1.234 .670 2.270
 TX US 27 .514 .212 1.244
 TX other places 125 1.000

Backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression, covariates included in all models: age, family size, monthly food expenditure

a

Food Guide Pyramid knowledge score based on whether the respondents: (a) could correctly recognize the Food Guide Pyramid and (b) knew the Food Guide Pyramid recommended daily servings of different food groups