Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2012;21(2):253–262.

Table 2.

Association of income, education, and demographic factors with snacking(yes-no), CHNS 1991–2009

Factor Model 1
Model 2§
β p-value β p-value
Intercept −2.90 <.0001 −2.67 <.0001
Year 2004 0.19 <.0001 −0.04 0.64
Year 2006 0.88 <.0001 0.56 <.0001
Year 2009 1.36 <.0001 1.12 <.0001
Middle income 0.27 <.0001 0.14 0.06
High income 0.65 <.0001 0.22 0.002
High education 0.25 <.0001 0.25 <.0001
Age 7–12y −0.48 <.0001 −0.47 <.0001
Age 13–18y −0.90 <.0001 −0.91 <.0001
Age 19–44y −1.18 <.0001 −1.19 <.0001
Age ≥45y −1.23 <.0001 −1.24 <.0001
Female 0.22 <.0001 0.22 <.0001
Urbanicity 0.02 <.0001 0.02 <.0001
Medium income*year 2004 0.04 0.74
High income*year 2004 0.49 <.0001
Medium income*year 2006 0.20 0.04
High income*year 2006 0.61 <.0001
Medium income*year 2009 0.18 0.05
High income*year 2009 0.42 <.0001
Likelihood ratio test p<0.001

A person is defined as a snacker if he or she consumes any snack during the three days investigated in this study.

Model1 adjusts for only potential confounders with no interaction terms.

§

Model2 includes both confounders and significant time-income interaction items (time-education and income-education interactions are not significant; p<0.05); the referent in the model 1 and model 2 was year 1991, low income, low education, male, age 2–6 years.