Table 5.
Individual variable and composite scores by neighbourhood deprivation
Variable |
Most deprived |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Least deprived |
Possible rangee |
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median (IQR)c | Min | Max | p-value | |||||
Composite score |
0 |
-0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
-1.9 |
2.2 |
0.09a |
(-0.9 to 0.8) |
(-0.9 to 0.8) |
(-0.9 to 0.8) |
(-0.7 to 0.8) |
(-0.8 to 0.9) |
||||
Variety |
-7 |
-7 |
-7 |
-7 |
-7 |
-25 |
35 |
0.6a |
(-9 to -2.5) |
(-10 to -2) |
(-9 to -2) |
(-8 to -4) |
(-10 to -3) |
||||
Price |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
Higher score is more healthful |
0.5a |
|
(-0.04 to 0.06) |
(-0.05 to 0.08) |
(-0.04 to 0.06) |
(-0.01 to 0.06) |
(-0.01 to 0.06) |
||||
Promotions |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-5 |
7 |
<0.001a |
(-1 to 0) |
(-1 to 0) |
(-1 to 0) |
(-2 to 0) |
(-2 to 0) |
||||
Shelf placement |
2 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
-15 |
21 |
0.04a |
(-5 to 7) |
(-5 to 5) |
(-4 to 6) |
(-3 to 6) |
(-3 to 6) |
||||
Store placement |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
-15 |
21 |
0.05a |
(-5 to 4) |
(-5 to 4) |
(-4 to 4) |
(-4 to 4) |
(-4 to 4) |
||||
Quality |
9 |
8 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
0 |
18 |
0.002a |
(1 to 15) |
(0 to 15) |
(3 to 17) |
(0 to 17) |
(3 to 17) |
||||
Healthier alternative |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0.03a |
(1 to 2) |
(1 to 3) |
(1 to 3) |
(1 to 3) |
(1 to 3) |
||||
Nutrition information |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
0 |
15 |
0.003a |
(9 to 14) |
(9 to 14) |
(9 to 14) |
(10 to 15) |
(11 to 15) |
||||
Single sale of two fruitsd | 42% | 36% | 39% | 43% | 43% | 0 | 2 | 0.4b |
aSpearman test for trend, bChi square test, cMedian and inter-quartile range (IQR) were provided for both parametric and non-parametric variables for ease of reading, dPercentage of two fruits available for single sale was provided because this variable was categorical, ePossible range of scores for each variable except composite score which shows actual range of composite score values.