. 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 5.

Associations of reported intention to improve diet with nutrition- and health-related psychosocial factors (NHRPF) in US adults with poor diet quality (HEI <20th percentile)^ˆ

Characteristic	Better NKB^¶	Better NHRPF^ξ
Characteristic	OR (95% CI)	95% CI
Men and women	1.17 (0.69, 1.99)	0.82 (0.41, 1.62)
By sex^∫
Men	1.93 (0.78, 4.77)	0.67 (0.26, 1.72)
Women	0.76 (0.38, 1.55)	1.41 (0.68, 2.92)
P value for interaction	0.110	0.253
By race/ethnicity^δ
NH whites	0.86 (0.42, 1.73)	0.59 (0.27, 1.28)
NH blacks	2.82 (0.64, 12.53)	5.05 (0.35, 72.22)
Hispanics	0.40 (0.02, 7.53)	1.26 (0.08, 19.54)
P value for interaction	0.077	<0.001

^ˆ

Adjusted for survey year, sex, age, education, poverty income ratio, race/ethnicity, region, urbanization, comorbidity, and self-rated health. All the ORs were not statistically significant (P>0.05).

^¶

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; a lower score<80th percentile served as the reference.

^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; worse NHRPF was defined as those with the others.

^∫

Interaction terms for NKB and NHRPF index with sex.

^δ

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