Table 3.
Main intention to treat analyses of the effect of AFLY5 intervention on potential mediators assessed immediately after the end of the intervention
| Outcome | Control group (reference group) | Intervention group | Main effect (group difference) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Mean (SD) | Number | Mean (SD) | Number | Difference in means (95 % CI) | P-value | |
| Physical activity self-efficacy | 1092 | 97.4 (12.2) | 1022 | 97.4 (13.8) | 2114 | −0.2 (−1.4 to 1.0) | 0.74 |
| Fruit & vegetable self-efficacy | 1093 | 87.2 (15.8) | 1020 | 89.7 (14.4) | 2113 | 2.2 (0.7 to 3.8) | 0.005 |
| Perceived maternal logistic support for physical activity | 1077 | 9.5 (2.2) | 1006 | 9.5 (2.3) | 2083 | −0.1 (−0.3 to 0.1) | 0.56 |
| Perceived paternal logistic support for physical activity | 1033 | 9.0 (2.4) | 977 | 9.2 (2.4) | 2010 | 0.1 (−0.1 to 0.3) | 0.45 |
| Perceived maternal modelling of physical activity | 1079 | 14.8 (3.6) | 1006 | 14.8 (3.7) | 2085 | 0.1 (−0.2 to 0.3) | 0.71 |
| Perceived paternal modelling of physical activity | 1033 | 15.3 (3.6) | 975 | 15.5 (3.7) | 2008 | 0.1 (−0.2 to 0.5) | 0.48 |
| Perceived maternal limitation of sedentary behaviour | 1078 | 11.3 (3.5) | 1006 | 11.8 (3.4) | 2084 | 0.5 (0.1 to 0.8) | 0.01 |
| Perceived paternal limitation of sedentary behaviour | 1031 | 10.6 (3.5) | 977 | 10.9 (3.5) | 2008 | 0.4 (−0.1 to 0.8) | 0.09 |
| Perceived parental modelling of fruit and vegetable consumption | 1089 | 33.9 (7.8) | 1017 | 34.4 (7.9) | 2106 | 0.7 (−0.3 to 1.6) | 0.17 |
| Knowledge | 1092 | 7.1 (1.4) | 1021 | 7.5 (1.5) | 2113 | 0.5 (0.2 to 0.7) | <0.001 |
All differences in means with their 95 % CIs have been estimated using a multi-level linear regression model to account for clustering (non-independence) among children from the same school
The following baseline/school stratifying covariables were included: age, gender, the baseline measure of the mediating outcome under consideration, school involvement in other health promoting activities, school area level deprivation
In these analyses participants were included for each outcome if they had a follow-up measurement of that outcome; for missing baseline data we used an indicator variable as describe by White & Thompson [42], which means for each outcome participants are included even if they do not have a baseline measurement