TABLE 2.
Adjusted Mean Daily Servings of Soda Among 9th- to 12th-Grade Students in States With and Without Policy Changes Targeting Junk Food in Schools: United States, 2007
| Servings by Policy Change Status |
|||
| Setting | With | Without | Difference,a Mean (95% CI) |
| Vending machines | |||
| Recommend or requireb | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.04 (−0.05, 0.13) |
| Requirec | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.02 (−0.07, 0.10) |
| Snack bars | |||
| Recommend or requireb | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.03 (−0.06, 0.12) |
| Requirec | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.01 (−0.08, 0.11) |
| Concession standsb | 0.91 | 1.00 | −0.09 (−0.17, −0.01) |
| Partiesb | 0.92 | 0.99 | −0.07 (−0.13, 0.00) |
Note. CI = confidence interval. Data are adjusted for student gender and race/ethnicity and state-level log per capita income, obesity prevalence, and political party of state legislature. Data on state policy change are from the 2000 and 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study. Adolescent soda consumption and BMI percentile in 2007 are from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia are represented in the sample (AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MS, MO, MI, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY).
The difference in students' daily servings of soda in states that required or recommended that schools prohibit junk food and states that did not, after adjustment for the covariates included in the model.
“Recommend” or “require” compared with “neither” (referent).
“Require” compared with “neither” (referent).