Table 2.
Balance in soda selection among parish’s dyadsa in the intervention and control group at baseline
| Control group | Intervention group | Differenceb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parish ID | Participants | Soda selection | Parish ID | Participants | Soda selection | |
| Parish 1 | 76 | 51.3% | Parish 9 | 123 | 56.1% | 4.8% |
| Parish 3 | 39 | 66.7% | Parish 2 | 56 | 66.1% | −0.6% |
| Parish 4 | 132 | 49.2% | Parish 11 | 137 | 58.4% | 9.2% |
| Parish 12c | 165 | 68.5% | Parish 5 | 116 | 51.7% | −16.8% |
| Parish 8 | 208 | 61.1% | Parish 6 | 192 | 60.9% | −0.1% |
| Parish 10 | 108 | 59.3% | Parish 7 | 136 | 66.9% | 7.7% |
| Overall | 728 | 59.6% | Overall | 760 | 59.7% | 0.1% |
aEach row contains a pair of parishes after restricted randomization.
bDifference in proportion of soda selection (intervention − control) at baseline.
cAll parishes, except parish ID12, initiated and continued in the study with assessments conducted on the same date. Parish ID 12 started the study 2 weeks later.