Table 6.

Mixed logistic regression analyses on the effect of a healthier canteen (ref. group not healthy) on changes in purchase behaviour.

		Model 1 e		Model 2 f		Model 3 g		Model 4 h
		OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Purchases cafeteria ab	Boys (n = 548)	0.93	0.60; 1.44	1.02	0.69; 1.52	1.03	0.69; 1.53	1.01	0.66; 1.55
	Girls (n = 665)	1.13	0.70; 1.83	1.14	0.70; 1.86	1.14	0.70; 1.88	1.13	0.69; 1.86
Purchases vending machine ac	Boys (n = 542)	1.27	0.75; 2.17	1.18	0.67; 2.05	1.18	0.68; 2.03	1.21	0.69; 2.12
	Girls (n = 675)	1.06	0.74; 1.50	1.14	0.77; 1.69	1.18	0.79; 1.75	1.15	0.75; 1.78
Purchases cafeteria and vending machine ad	Boys (n = 620)	1.17	0.84; 1.62	1.19	0.83; 1.73	1.19	0.83; 1.70	1.14	0.79; 1.65
	Girls (n = 756)	0.87	0.61; 1.26	0.89	0.61; 1.28	0.90	0.62; 1.30	0.90	0.61; 1.34

^a Dichotomous outcome: healthier vs. less healthy changes in purchases over time. ^b Healthier canteen, measured with the subtopic healthier products available in cafeteria (≥60%, <60% (ref. group)). ^c Healthier canteen, measured with the subtopic healthier products available at vending machines (≥60%, <60% (ref. group)). ^d Healthier canteen, measured with the subtopic fulfilled healthier accessibility criteria (≥60%, <60% (ref. group)). ^e Model 1 = mixed logistic regression analysis, corrected for school. ^f Model 2 = Model 1, plus corrected for demographic variables (age, education). ^g Model 3 = Model 2, plus corrected for behavioural determinants (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intention); ^h Model 4 = Model 3, plus corrected for environmental determinants (amount of money spent in school p/w, breakfast, food purchases outside school, drink purchases outside school, food brought from home, drinks brought from home).