Skip to main content
. 2015 Aug 14;6(3):386–395. doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0337-9

Table 3.

Mean between-group difference (95 % CI) in study outcomes for telephone program and group-based program at two months, adjusted for confounders

Completersa p value Multiple imputationb p value
Mean difference (95 % CI) Mean difference (95 % CI)
Weight (kg) −2.0 (−3.4, −0.6) .007 −2.2 (−3.5, −0.9) .002
Waist circumference (cm) −0.3 (−2.9, 2.2) .808 −0.2 (−2.2, 1.8) .836
Walking (min/week) 73.1 (17.4, 128.7) .011 73.6 (14.6, 132.5) .016
Fruit (serves/day) 0.6 (0.1, 1.0) .009 0.5 (0.1, 0.9) .012
Vegetables (serves/day) −0.1 (−0.7, 0.6) .823 0.01 (−0.7, 0.7) .966
FFBQ Fat Index (1–5) −0.2 (−0.4, 0.0) .068 −0.2 (−0.4, −0.0) .034
FFBQ Fibre Index (1–5) −0.2 (−0.4, 0.0) .102 −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) .213
FFBQ Total Index (1–5) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.0) .110 −0.1 (−0.3, 0.0) .088

All models adjust for baseline values. Additionally, models adjust for smoking (weight); self-reported physical activity, smoking, weight loss attempt over previous 6 months (waist circumference); education, heart condition, weight loss attempt over previous 6 months (walking for exercise); BMI, self-reported physical activity, education, employment, heart condition, musculoskeletal condition (fruit intake); BMI, ethnicity, heart condition (vegetable intake); age, BMI, heart condition, mental illness (FFBQ fat); previously diagnosed cancer (FFBQ Fibre); previously diagnosed cancer, heart condition (FFBQ Total).

FFBQ Fat and Fibre Behaviour Questionnaire

aTelephone program n = 43. Group-based program: weight n = 31; waist circumference, walking, fruit intake, vegetable intake, FFBQ Fibre Index, FFBQ Total Index n = 26, FFBQ Fat Index n = 28

bMultiple Imputation using 20 imputations by chained equations. Telephone program n = 61, group-based program n = 50