Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 28;44(4):812–822. doi: 10.1038/s41366-019-0511-0

Table 3.

Adjusted differences for all secondary outcomes between control and intervention arm at 4 and 12 months follow-up.

Mean (SD) Mean difference (95% CI), P value
Intervention arm Control arm Intervention vs control (partial adjusted)a Intervention vs control (further adjusted)b
Outcomes Baseline 4 months 12 months Baseline 4 months 12 months 4 months P value 12 months P value 4 months P value 12 months P value
Body fat %

FU1

Intervention n = 911

Control n = 730

FU2:

Intervention n = 844

Control n = 817

21.9 (7.1) 21.0 (7.3) 22.2 (7.8) 21.8 (6.9) 21.2 (7.2) 22.3 (7.7) −0.35 (−0.79 to 0.08) 0.113 −0.43 (−0.87 to 0.00) 0.049 −0.18 (−0.61 to 0.24) 0.401 −0.01 (−0.42 to 0.40) 0.967
CHU-9D utility scorec

FU2

Intervention n = 980

Control n = 1015

0.83 (0.2) Not collected 0.84 (0.2) 0.84 (0.2) Not collected 0.83 (0.2) N/A 0.003 (−0.05 to 0.05) 0.894 N/A 0.010 (−0.02 to 0.04) 0.500
MDI Wellbeing Index score

FU2

Intervention n = 980

Control n = 1015

58.5 (10.9) Not collected 59.1 (10.9) 57.8 (11.1) Not collected 58.4 (11.5) N/A 1.90 (−3.07 to 6.87) 0.499 N/A 0.56 (−2.15 to 3.27) 0.687

CHU-9D Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions instrument, MDI middle-years development instrument, FU1 4-month follow-up, FU2 12-month follow-up, CI confidence interval, N/A not applicable

aAdjusted for school size, % free school meals, school BMIz, school baseline outcome, participant baseline outcome

bAdjusted for school size, % free school meals, school BMIz, sex, ethnicity, deprivation (index of multiple deprivation score for school postcode), age, participant baseline outcome, school baseline outcome

cMeasured on a zero to one scale with zero and one being a state equivalent to death and full health, respectively