Table 1.
Sociodemographic characteristics of households at inclusion according to the group (N = 92)
| Control group N = 47 | Intervention group N = 45 | p value* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Child female gender | 27 | 57.4 | 24 | 53.3 | 0.69 |
| Child age (years) (mean+/-SD) | 6.8 | ±2.4 | 8.1 | ±2.2 | 0.01 |
| Adult female gender | 47 | 100 | 44 | 98 | 0.3 |
| Adult age (years) (mean+/-SD) | 39.3 | ±8.2 | 39.8 | ±6.4 | 0.72 |
| Single parent household | 44 | 93.6 | 41 | 91.1 | 0.65 |
| Parent’s place of birth | |||||
| France† | 18 | 38.3 | 12 | 26.7 | 0.53 |
| Maghreb | 11 | 23.4 | 16 | 35.6 | |
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 14 | 29.8 | 13 | 28,9 | |
| Other | 4 | 8.5 | 4 | 8.9 | |
| Total number of children in household | |||||
| 1 | 14 | 29.8 | 12 | 26.7 | 0.84 |
| 2 | 18 | 38.3 | 16 | 35.6 | |
| ≥ 3 | 15 | 31.9 | 17 | 37.8 | |
| Household’s monthly income (euros) (N = 91) | |||||
| < 900 | 13 | 27.7 | 16 | 35.6 | 0.57 |
| [900–1300[ | 28 | 59.6 | 25 | 55.6 | |
| > 1300 | 5 | 10.6 | 4 | 8.9 | |
| Small FV consumers (< 3.5 servings per day) | |||||
| Children | 31 | 66.0 | 28 | 62.2 | 0.71 |
| Adults | 36 | 76.6 | 36 | 80.0 | 0.69 |
| Lunch at school | 39 | 86.7 | 40 | 88.9 | 0.75 |
| EPICES Score (mean+/-SD) | 54.1 | 16.1 | 61.1 | 16.9 | 0.05 |
| Proportion of total food budget devoted to FV | |||||
| < 30% | 28 | 59.6 | 22 | 48.9 | 0.3 |
| ≥ 30% | 19 | 40.4 | 23 | 51.1 | |
Abbreviations: EPICES: Deprivation score ranking from 0 (the less precarious situation) to 100 (the most precarious situation). Precarious situation is defined when EPICES score is upper than 30.17, and great precarious situation when the score is upper than 53.84; FV: fruits and vegetables;SD: Standard Deviation;
*Fisher exact tests were performed for qualitative data and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were performed for quantitative data
†Including Metropolitan France and overseas departments
Missing data: Proportion of food budget devoted to FV N = 5 (5.4%), other missing data were less than 5%