Skip to main content
. 2012 May 23;2012:816834. doi: 10.1155/2012/816834

Table 2.

The diet quality and physical activity levels of rural and urban students in 2005 and 2008.

2005 2008 P-value
Rural (n = 2685) Urban (n = 2185) Rural (n = 1052) Urban (n = 4033)
Diet quality*
Poor 1411 (52.6)a 1041 (47.6)b 542 (51.5) 2049 (50.8)c <.001ab;  .016bc
Average 1166 (43.4)a 1038 (47.5)b 461 (43.8) 1803 (44.7)c .005ab;  .036bc
Superior 108 (4.0) 106 (4.9) 49 (4.7) 181 (4.5) All >.05
PAQ-C‡§
PAQ-c Score|| 2.87 ± .03a 2.90 ± .03 3.00 ± .04b 2.88 ± .03c .003ab;  .008bc

*Diet quality is based on whether participants met minimum food group recommendations for Eating Well With Canada's Food Guide and was classified as poor (0-1 food group), average (2-3 food groups), or superior (all 4 food groups).

Reported as n (%), superscripts in each row indicate source of significant differences.

PAQ-C: Scores range from 1 (no physical activity) to 5 (high amount of physical activity) and are adjusted for SES, sex and age. A score of 3 is considerate moderate activity.

§Sample size for PAQ-C: (rural 2005: n = 2423, urban 2005: n = 1938, rural 2008: n = 976, urban 2008: n = 3097), significant main effect for year (P = .024) and an interaction (P = .033).

||Reported as Mean ± standard error. As a follow-up to significant interactions superscripts in each row indicate source of significant differences at P < .05 using a test of simple effects to compare differences by year and by residence.