Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 13;16(16):2891. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16162891

Table 4.

Estimated impacts of treatments on students’ dietary structure.

Outcome Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Changes in: DDS Milk and Dairy Products Other Meat Flesh Meat Fruits Bean Products, Nuts and Seeds Vegetables Eggs Grains Tubers Fish
Treatment 1: Nutrition subsidy + general target 0.956 *** 0.185 *** 0.179 *** 0.172 *** 0.166 *** 0.107 * 0.063 0.069 0.022 0.011 −0.018
(malnutrition reduction) (0.255) (0.057) (0.054) (0.053) (0.059) (0.060) (0.047) (0.054) (0.019) (0.051) (0.033)
Treatment 2: Nutrition subsidy + specific target 1.263 *** 0.236 *** 0.146 *** 0.257 *** 0.196 *** 0.179 *** 0.189 *** 0.013 0.033 −0.004 0.018
(anemia reduction) (0.224) (0.053) (0.048) (0.056) 0.166 *** (0.057) (0.045) (0.051) (0.025) (0.054) (0.033)
Control variables yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Observations 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866 866
R2 0.078 0.055 0.034 0.067 0.035 0.048 0.086 0.020 0.011 0.020 0.031

Notes: 1. Control variables include ethnicity dummies (for Han, Hui, Salar, Tibetan, Tu, and “others” that are very small in numbers), a gender dummy, a grade dummy, number of siblings, father’s education (years), mother’s education (years), whether one’s mother is a migrant worker, whether one’s mother is a migrant worker, student-teacher ratio, and proportion of senior-level teaching staffs and province dummies. 2. Robust standard errors in parentheses. 3. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.