Table 1.
Characteristic | Overall | Store 1 (n = 104) | Store 2 (n = 97) | Store 3 (n = 101) | Store 4 (n = 100) | Store 5 (n = 98) | Heterogeneity across stores (p-value) b | State of Victoria (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Estimated percentage [95%CI] a | Proportion (%) | |||||||
Female | 355 | 72 [68,76] | 67 | 75 | 70 | 75 | 74 | 0.650 | 51.9 c |
Aged 55 + years | 322 | 65 [61, 70] | 63 | 68 | 65 | 72 | 60 | 0.445 | 33.0 c |
High SEIFA d | 284 | 61 [16, 93] | 7 | 92 | 93 | 10 | 89 | < 0.001 | ~ 50 |
University degree or higher | 165 | 34 [26,42] | 24 | 32 | 34 | 27 | 52 | < 0.001 | 24.3 c |
Regular weekly shop always or usually at this store | 234 | 64 [56,72] | 67 | 71 | 60 | 73 | 49 | 0.010 | N/A |
Shop regularly at competitor supermarket | 463 | 93 [90, 95] | 92 | 92 | 90 | 93 | 96 | 0.621 | N/A |
n = 500 customer surveys at the 5 intervention stores, range of 97 to 104 surveys per store. N/A data not available
a Estimated using univariate logistic models with store as random effect to account for the clustering induced by store. b Chi-squared test of differences in proportions across stores; c Persons 15 years and older; d SEIFA, Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage- Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas [19]. ‘High’ SEIFA reflects top half of Victorian SEIFA groupings