Table 3:
Mixed logit model for Chicago Healthy Eating Environments and Resources (CHEERS) participant mean meal preference estimates by level of education
| Attribute | HS or less | Some college | Bachelor’s degree or more | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | 95% CI | Relative attribute importancea | Coefficient | 95% CI | Relative attribute importancea | Coefficient | 95% CI | Relative attribute importancea | |
| Taste | 27.0% | 19.0% | 23.5% | ||||||
| Very good | 0.78b,c | (0.56, 1.00) | 0.79b,c | (0.48, 1.09) | 1.94b | (1.59, 2.28) | |||
| Good | 0.05c | (−0.24, 0.33) | 0.07c | (−0.31, 0.46) | 1.09b | (0.79, 1.39) | |||
| OK | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Healthfulness | 62.3% | 50.6% | 44.9% | ||||||
| Healthy | 1.70b,c | (1.41, 1.98) | 1.84b,c | (1.44, 2.24) | 3.84b | (3.28, 4.40) | |||
| Neutral | 1.19b,c | (0.94, 1.45) | 1.28b,c | (0.90, 1.67) | 2.37b | (1.94, 2.79) | |||
| Unhealthy | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Price (per $2 increase) | −0.09b,c | (−0.17, −0.01) | 9.8% | −0.10 | (−0.22, 0.02) | 5.5% | −0.25b | (−0.35, −0.14) | 4.9% |
| Preparation time (per 15 minute increase) | −0.02c | (−0.10, 0.05) | 0.2% | −0.18b,c | (−0.30, −0.06) | 16.4% | −0.48b | (−0.61, −0.35) | 18.5% |
| Travel time (per 5–10 minute increase) | −0.04c | (−0.12, 0.03) | 0.8% | −0.16b | (−0.29, −0.04) | 8.6% | −0.29b | (−0.39, −0.20) | 8.1% |
a
Relative attribute importance was calculated by dividing the difference in utility between the highest and lowest level of a single attribute by the sum of the differences of all attributes
b
Attributes or attribute levels with this superscript had a significant impact on meal preference
c
Statistically significant heterogeneity compared with referent category (bachelor’s degree or more) based on p-value for interaction terms