Table 1.
Characteristics of parent participants and their likability ratings of Nutricity, a mobile nutrition literacy intervention platform.
| Characteristic | English cohort (n = 15) | Spanish cohort (n = 15) | Overall (n = 30) | Comparisons p-value and/or X2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnicity/Race, n (% of cohort) | ||||
| Hispanic White | 2 (13%) | 5 (33%) | 7 (23%) | N/A |
| Hispanic Other | 2 (13%) | 10 (57%) | 12 (40%) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 8 (53%) | 0 | 8 (27%) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 3 (20%) | 0 | 3 (10%) | |
| Age, μ years (SD); t-test | 29.3 (9.7) | 31.8 (7.1) | 30.6 (8.4) | p = 0.43 |
| Education, n (% of cohort); X2 | X2(2, N = 30) = 5.89, p = 0.053 | |||
| <high school | 2 (13%) | 7 (47%) | 9 (30%) | |
| High school/GED | 4 (27%) | 5 (33%) | 9 (30%) | |
| Some college and higher | 9 (60%) | 3 (20%) | 12 (40%) | |
| Incomea, n (% of cohort); X2 | X2 (2, N = 30) = 8.09, p = 0.018* | |||
| <$25,000 | 4 (27%) | 11 (73%) | 15 (50%) | |
| $25,000–74,999 | 7 (47%) | 4 (27%) | 11 (37%) | |
| >$75,000 | 4 (27%) | 0 | 4 (13%) | |
| Nutrition Literacyb, μ score (SD); t-test | 34.6 (7.0) | 28.1 (5.5) | 31.3 (7.0) | p = 0.009** |
| Nutrition Literacy Category, n (%), X2 | X2 (2, N = 30) = 10.68, p = 0.005** | |||
| 1. “Likelihood of poor nutrition literacy,” (≤28 points) | 2 (13%) | 8 (53%) | 10 (33%) | |
| 2. “Possibility of poor nutrition literacy,” n (%) (29–38 points) | 6 (40%) | 7 (47%) | 13 (43%) | |
| 3. “Likelihood of good nutrition literacy,” n (%) (≥39 points) | 7 (47%) | 0 | 7 (23%) | |
| Overall Likability ratingc, μ (SD); t-test | 4.6 (0.3) | 4.5 (0.3) | 4.6 (0.3) | p = 0.45 |
| Liking | 4.7 (0.2) | 4.1 (0.3) | 4.4 (0.3) | p < 0.001** |
| Attention | 4.7 (0.4) | 4.9 (0.2) | 4.8 (0.2) | p = 0.08 |
| Intention | 4.4 (0.6) | 4.7 (0.3) | 4.5 (0.3) | p = 0.06 |
| Understanding | 4.8 (0.3) | 4.5 (0.4) | 4.7 (0.4) | p = 0.60 |
*
p < 0.05;
**
p < 0.01
a
Median income by zipcode was used as a proxy for annual household income for participants who did not report annual incomes (n = 6).
b
Nutrition Literacy measured using the Nutrition Literacy Assessment Instrument in English or Spanish; Maximum score = 42 points.
c
Likability assessed by survey adapted from Silk et al. Data shown for 14, Likert-style items participants ranked on scale of “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree).