. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 Apr;112(4):486–498.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2011.12.003

Table 4.

Logistic regression models: Associations (OR and 95%CI) of having good (HEI score≥80th percentile) or poor diet (HEI score<20th percentile), exercise participation and overweight/obesity with nutrition- and health-related psychosocial factors (NHRPF)^ˆ

Key predictors	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
	Better NHRPF^ξ	Better NKB^¶	Nutrition importance^§	Food choice^∫	Awareness^φ	Intention to improve diet^ϐ
Outcomes	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)
*1. For whole sample*
HEI≥80th vs. <80th percentile	1.52 (1.23, 1.88)^*	1.90 (1.49, 2.42)^*	2.26 (1.77, 2.90)^**	1.14 (0.89, 1.46)	1.40 (1.08, 1.82)^*	0.57 (0.47, 0.69)^*
HEI<20th vs.≥20th percentile	0.68 (0.48, 0.98)^*	0.61 (0.41, 0.91)^*	0.47 (0.38, 0.59)^**	0.84 (0.71, 0.99)^*	0.67 (0.52, 0.86)^*	1.37 (1.04, 1.79)^*
Exercise participation	1.25 (0.93, 1.67)	1.68 (1.38, 2.05)^*	1.57 (1.30, 1.90)^*	1.09 (0.89, 1.33)	1.09 (0.83, 1.43)	0.75 (0.60, 0.93)^*
Weight status^ˆˆ
Overweight (BMI: 25-29.9)	1.11 (0.89, 1.39)	0.99 (0.80, 1.23)	0.96 (0.76, 1.21)	1.15 (0.94, 1.40)	0.93 (0.80, 1.09)	1.40 (1.14, 1.71)^*
Obesity (BMI≥30)	1.04 (0.78, 1.38)	0.93 (0.69, 1.25)	0.91 (0.69, 1.19)	1.11 (0.83, 1.47)	1.03 (0.85, 1.26)	1.69 (1.36, 2.10)^*
*2. Stratified by race/ethnicity*^δ
1) HEI≥80th percentile
NH whites	1.49 (1.16, 1.91)^*	1.86 (1.46, 2.38)^*	2.45 (1.92, 3.14)^***	1.10 (0.80, 1.53)	1.33 (1.03, 1.73)^*	0.61 (0.50, 0.73)^*
NH blacks	1.10 (0.47, 2.55)	1.38 (0.61, 3.12)	1.32 (0.67, 2.57)	1.26 (0.71, 2.23)	0.99 (0.46, 2.16)	0.31 (0.13, 0.78)^*
Hispanics	1.14 (0.47, 2.77)	2.23 (1.01, 4.96)^*	0.95 (0.37, 2.44)	0.50 (0.27, 0.94)^**	2.24 (0.88, 2.16)	0.76 (0.28, 2.06)
P value for interaction	0.655	0.994	0.103	0.006	0.760	0.212
2) Exercise participation
NH whites	1.32 (0.99, 1.77)	1.68 (1.38, 2.04)^*	1.48 (1.23, 1.78)^*	0.96 (0.78, 1.18)	1.19 (0.91, 1.54)	0.68 (0.54, 0.85)^*
NH blacks	0.83 (0.36, 1.87)	1.41 (0.72, 2.76)	1.60 (0.96, 2.64)	0.98 (0.56, 1.72)	0.64 (0.32, 1.26)	0.94 (0.53, 1.68)
Hispanics	0.79 (0.43, 1.45)	1.00 (0.59, 1.71)	1.48 (0.65, 3.39)	1.33 (0.79, 2.26)	1.24 (0.70, 2.19)	1.12 (0.66, 1.91)
P value for interaction	0.008	<0.001	0.095	0.026	0.354	0.391
3) BMI≥25
NH whites	1.20 (0.98, 1.48)	1.16 (0.91, 1.46)	0.96 (0.77, 1.20)	1.17 (0.92, 1.48)	0.98 (0.81, 1.18)	1.54 (1.28, 1.86)^*
NH blacks	0.90 (0.45, 1.82)	0.62 (0.34, 1.11)	0.87 (0.50, 1.51)	0.81 (0.49, 1.34)	1.15 (0.75, 1.75)	1.54 (0.95, 2.51)
Hispanics	0.61 (0.31, 1.22)	0.57 (0.25, 1.29)	1.26 (0.48, 3.31)	1.72 (0.97, 3.04)	0.61 (0.37, 1.01)	0.64 (0.32, 1.29)
P value for interaction	0.176	0.181	0.576	0.439	0.008	0.084

Abbreviation: NHRPF, nutrition- and health-related psychosocial factors; NKB, nutrition knowledge and beliefs; HEI, healthy eating index; OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; BMI, body mass index.

^ˆ

Each model adjusted for survey year, sex, age, education, poverty income ratio, region, urbanization, comorbidity, and self-rated health.

^ξ

Better NHRPF was those with better nutrition knowledge and beliefs (NKB score≥median), more food choice consideration (score≥median), and more awareness of nutrition-related health risks.

^¶

NKB: It consisted of 11 questions as ‘To you personally, is it very important (score: 4), somewhat important (3), not too important (score: 2), or not at all important (score: 1) to consume the following nutrients/foods at appropriate levels: salt/sodium, saturated fat, fiber, cholesterol, fruits and vegetables, sugar, dairy products, etc?’ (total score range: 11-44). Better NKB was defined as NKB score ≥80th percentile, while a score<80th percentile as reference.

^§

Nutrition importance was assessed by asking participants: ‘When you buy food, how important is nutrition?’ Response ‘very important’ was categorized as ‘nutrition importance’ group, while subjects with other responses served as the reference group.

^∫

Food choice: Subjects took considerations of 6 key factors affecting food choices, including food safety, nutrition, price, freshment, convenience, and taste (score range: 6-24). More food choice consideration was defined as a total score ≥80th percentile, while a score<80th percentile served as the reference.

^φ

Subjects were categorized in the “awareness” group if they were aware of all 7 nutrition-related health risks (e.g., high fat, cholesterol, sodium; low fiber and calcium) vs. the other participants who were less aware of.

^ϐ

Intention to improve diet was assessed by asking subjects whether they thought about their current diet habits and would be willing to make changes: “The things that I eat and drink are healthy, and there is no reason for me to make changes.” (4-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree. Those who answered “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree” were grouped as “intention to improve diet” and those reporting “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” served as the reference group.

^ˆˆ

Multinomial logistric regression models were conducted, subjects with BMI<25 served as the reference.

^δ

Interaction terms for NHRPF with race/ethnicity. Results for ‘Others’ group were not presented although this group was included in the interaction term analysis.

P<0.05;

^**

P<0.01;

^***

P<0.001.