Table 2.

Comparison of the three cluster solution for diet, PA and SB. PeNSE Brazil, 2015

	Cluster 1 Health-promoting SB and diet	Cluster 2 Health-promoting PA and diet	Cluster 3 Health-risk	F	p Value	Effect size
	n = 32,814	n = 45,234	n = 22,746
	mean ± sd (range)	mean ± sd (range)	mean ± sd (range)
Physical activity	0.68 ± 0.92 (0, 4)	4.56 ± 2.05 (0, 7)	0.86 ± 1.24 (0, 6)	72,102.5	p < 0.001	0.59
Sedentary behavior	2.59 ± 1.55 (1, 7)	3.85 ± 2.31 (1, 9)	7.78 ± 1.39 (3, 9)	52,596.5	p < 0.001	0.51
Unhealthy diet	1.68 ± 0.97 (0, 4.8)	2.87 ± 1.49 (0, 7)	3.24 ± 1.45 (0, 7)	11,387.9	p < 0.001	0.18
Healthy diet	2.68 ± 1.97 (0, 7)	4.10 ± 2.07 (0, 7)	2.58 ± 1.97 (0, 7)	6610.8	p < 0.001	0.16

sd standard deviation

Differences between clusters were observed by ANOVA test. All three clusters are significantly different at p < 0.001(Tukey post hoc)

Eta-squared effect sizes

The methodology for complex analysis and weighting was considered