. 2018 Nov 21;1(7):e185217. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5217

Table 2. Linear Regression Models Examining Associations of Family Dinner Frequency With Dietary Outcomes, Stratified by Level of Family Functioning.

Outcome^a	Female Participants		Male Participants
Outcome^a	Effect Estimate (95% CI)^b	Interaction P Value	Effect Estimate (95% CI)^b	Interaction P Value
Fruit without juice, servings/d
High family functioning	0.07 (0.01 to 0.14)^c	.18	0.08 (0.02 to 0.14)^c	.90
Low family functioning	0.14 (0.04 to 0.25)^c	.18	0.05 (−0.04 to 0.14)^c	.90
Vegetables, servings/d
High family functioning	0.27 (0.17 to 0.38)^c	.17	0.23 (0.11 to 0.35)^c	.89
Low family functioning	0.12 (−0.02 to 0.27)	.17	0.11 (−0.07 to 0.30)	.89
Sugar-sweetened beverages, servings/d
High family functioning	−0.04 (−0.07 to −0.01)^c	.29	−0.05 (−0.11 to 0.01)	.66
Low family functioning	0.02 (−0.03 to 0.08)	.29	−0.12 (−0.24 to 0.01)	.66
Fast food, times/wk
High family functioning	−0.06 (−0.10 to −0.02)^c	.71	−0.10 (−0.17 to −0.03)^c	.94
Low family functioning	0.00 (−0.08 to 0.08)	.71	−0.10 (−0.21 to 0.01)	.94
Takeout food, times/wk
High family functioning	−0.04 (−0.08 to −0.01)^c	.59	−0.04 (−0.10 to 0.01)	.77
Low family functioning	−0.04 (−0.11 to 0.03)	.59	−0.10 (−0.18 to −0.02)^c	.77

^{^a}

Family functioning scores of 2.17 or higher indicate high functioning, and scores of less than 2.17 indicate low functioning.

^{^b}

Adjusted for age, mothers’ spouse or partner’s educational attainment, and family structure.

^{^c}

Significant results at P < .05.