Table 5.

Males: Associations of school obesity prevention policies with school-level prevalence of weight-control behaviors among 9^th and 12^th grade students enrolled at a cohort of Minnesota schools, 2007 to 2010

	Extreme behaviors		Unhealthy behaviors		Healthy behaviors
	Mean prevalence difference (95% CI)	P value	Mean prevalence difference (95% CI)	P value	Mean prevalence difference (95% CI)	P value
School policy score
Limit availability of competitive foods (score range: 0–9)	0.2 (−0.2, 0.5)	0.29	0.4 (−0.3, 1.1)	0.23	0.1 (−1.3, 1.4)	0.94
Make healthy vending options available (score range: 0–2)	−0.8 (−1.7, 0.0)	0.06	−0.2 (−2.1, 1.7)	0.82	0.1 (−3.5, 3.6)	0.97
Promote healthy foods and beverages (score range: 0–5)	−0.2 (−0.8, 0.4)	0.60	−1.3 (−2.5, −0.1)	0.03	0.8 (−1.5, 3.1)	0.49
Ban advertising for unhealthy foods and beverages (score range: 0–4)	−0.1 (−0.5, 0.3)	0.71	0.3 (−0.6, 1.2)	0.53	0.9 (−0.8, 2.5)	0.30
Provide intramural sports (item range: 0–1)	−0.9 (−2.9, 1.2)	0.42	−1.1 (−5.4, 3.3)	0.63	−2.4 (−10.5, 5.6)	0.56
Overall summary score (score range: 0–22)	−0.0 (−0.3, 0.2)	0.87	0.1 (−0.5, 0.7)	0.74	0.4 (−0.6, 1.4)	0.45

^aAll models include a fixed effect for school to adjust for measured (school level, location, percentage minority enrollment, percentage eligible for free/reduced-price meals) and unmeasured school characteristics as well as the percentage of enrolled males who were overweight. Year was included in all models to estimate the change in school-level mean student outcomes over time (from 2007–2010), which can be interpreted as the ‘secular change” in each outcome.