Table 6.
Baseline characteristics of participants in the intervention group (engaged vs. non-engaged)
| Mean (s.d.) unless stated | ‘Engaged’ (n=52) | ‘Non-engaged’ (n=480) | Group difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child age (years) |
7.96 (2.04) |
8.26 (1.84) |
t(525)=1.09, p=0.28 |
| Parent age (years) |
37.06 (5.61) |
39.20 (6.21) |
t(512)=2.33, p=0.02* |
| Parent BMI |
25.52 (4.33) |
25.07 (5.04) |
t(510)=-0.61, p=0.55 |
| Child gender, n (%) |
|
|
|
| Male |
25, 48.1% |
243, 50.6% |
X2(1)=1.22, p=0.73 |
| Female |
27, 51.9% |
237, 49.4% |
|
| Ethnicity, n (%) |
|
|
|
| White |
46, 88.5% |
376, 78.8% |
X2(1)=2.70, p=1.00 |
| Non-white |
6, 11.5% |
101, 21.2% |
|
| Parent education, n (%) |
|
|
|
| University |
11, 21.2% |
166, 35.2% |
X2(1)=4.11, p=0.04* |
| Non-university |
41, 78.8% |
306, 64.8% |
|
| Importance diet (1-5)+ |
4.58 (0.64) |
4.58 (0.68) |
t(528)=0.07, p=0.95 |
| Importance activity (1-5)+ |
4.48 (0.67) |
4.53 (0.67) |
t(527)=0.48, p=0.63 |
| Ease diet (1-5)+ |
4.02 (0.83) |
3.62 (1.02) |
t(69.22)=-3.23, p=0.006** |
| Ease physical (1-5)+ |
3.96 (0.79) |
3.83 (0.91) |
t(519)=-1.02, p=0.31 |
| Rating of diet adequacy, n (%) |
|
|
|
| Yes |
40, 76.9% |
323, 67.4% |
X2(1)=1.95, p=0.16 |
| No |
12, 23.1% |
156, 32.6% |
|
| Rating of activity adequacy, n (%) |
|
|
|
| Yes |
34, 65.4% |
354, 74.1% |
X2(1)=1.80, p=0.18 |
| No | 18, 34.6% | 124, 25.9% |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; +Higher score indicates a higher rating of importance or ease.