Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 16;54(6):436–446. doi: 10.1093/abm/kaz060

Table 3.

Outcomes comparison between control and intervention groups

Outcomes All 12 parishes 10 parishes in which the experiment started at the same time (sensitive analysis)a
Control (6 parishes) Intervention (6 parishes) Difference (intervention minus control) p b Control (5 parishes) Intervention (5 parishes) Difference (intervention minus control) p b
% % % % % %
Main outcomes
Difference in proportion of soda selection (Week 1 − baseline)c 4.5% −3.7% −8.2% .03 5.2% −5.4% −10.6% .01
Proportion of soda selection at Week 1 after baseline 63.8% 56.3% −7.5% .26 62.7% 56.3% −6.4% .46
Secondary outcomes
Difference in proportion of soda selection (Week 3 − baseline)c 8.9% 2.7% −6.2% .15 10.8% 2.1% −8.7% .05
Proportion of soda selection at Week 3 after baseline 68.2% 62.7% −5.6% .26 68.4% 63.8% −4.6% .46
Self-reported outcomes
Difference in soda purchase for personal consumption (in liters)d −0.7 −0.7 0.1 .75 −0.8 −0.8 0.0 .92
Difference in soda purchase for familiar consumption (in liters)d −2.6 −2.2 0.5 .63 −2.8 −2.5 0.3 .92

aSensitivity analysis including only those dyads that participated in the experiment simultaneously.

bWilcoxon rank-sum test. Bold estimates are significant (p < .05).

cDifferences correspond to difference-in-difference approaches, that is, [observation at week × minus baseline in the intervention group] minus [observation at week × minus baseline in the control group].

dPurchasing behaviors were asked immediately after the Week 3 mass service and represent the difference between the self-reported median values (in liters) of soda purchased during the last week compared to a usual week in the previous month.