Table 5.
Associations of Advertising Policies and Healthy Food and Beverage Promotions in Minnesota Schools, 2012†
| Banned advertising score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | p for trend | |
| Price incentives for healthy foods‡ | 7.6 | 10.0 | 16.9 | 21.1 | 23.9 | .003 |
| Produce accessible near cashier‡ | 67.6 | 78.6 | 75.5 | 77.7 | 78.3 | .26 |
| Produce attractively displayed‡ | 57.6 | 66.6 | 68.7 | 71.8 | 72.8 | .05 |
| Appealing labels for healthy foods‡ | 33.0 | 33.2 | 36.7 | 38.8 | 40.1 | .38 |
| Healthy food and beverage promotion score* | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 2.0 | < .01 |
†
All models include adjustment for school level, school geographic location, school minority enrollment (%), and free/reduced-price school meal eligibility (%).
‡
Percentage of schools reporting implementation of the environmental strategy to promote healthy food and beverages.
*
Mean score among schools with a given banned advertising score.