Table 4.
Log-binomial regression results–relative risk that ranking improved (follow-up vs. baseline) between FOPL group and control (adjusted for design factors and covariates as planned).
| MTL vs. Control RR (95%CI) |
N-S vs. Control RR (95%CI) |
WL vs. Control RR (95%CI) |
PC vs. Control RR (95%CI) |
N-S vs. MTL RR (95%CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pizza | 2.66 (1.72, 4.11) p < 0.001 |
2.70 (1.76, 4.15) p < 0.001 |
2.36 (1.51, 3.67) p < 0.001 |
0.90 (0.56, 1.46) 0.67 |
1.02 (0.78, 1.33) p = 0.90 |
| Drink | 4.27 (2.36, 7.74) p < 0.001 |
6.10 (3.43, 10.84) p < 0.001 |
2.95 (1.61, 5.41) p < 0.001 |
2.37 (1.17, 4.77) p < 0.001 |
1.43 (1.04, 1.96) p = 0.03 |
| Cake | 6.89 (3.80, 12.50) p < 0.001 |
6.21 (3.46, 11.14) p < 0.001 |
5.60 (3.11, 10.10) p < 0.001 |
0.91 † (0.41, 2.02) 0.82 |
0.90 (0.70, 1.15) p = 0.40 |
| Crisps | 5.28 (3.59, 7.76) p < 0.001 |
5.83 (3.97, 8.56) p < 0.001 |
3.69 (2.46, 5.53) p < 0.001 |
1.40 †
(0.82, 2.40) 0.22 |
1.10 (0.90, 1.35) p = 0.34 |
| Yoghurt | 22.36 (13.77, 36.31) p < 0.001 |
22.80 (14.04, 37.04) p < 0.001 |
15.81 (9.69, 25.81) p < 0.001 |
2.92 (1.65, 5.16) p < 0.001 |
1.02 (0.93, 1.12) p = 0.68 |
| Breakfast cereal | 7.03 (4.96, 9.98) p < 0.001 |
7.75 (5.47, 10.97) p < 0.001 |
6.43 (4.51, 9.17) p < 0.001 |
1.95 (1.29, 2.95) p < 0.01 |
1.10 (0.97, 1.25) p = 0.13 |
† Cake and crisps categories had no products qualify for Positive Choice tick; all analyses were adjusted for the five stratification factors (year of recruitment to panel, sex, age, government office region, household income) and the following pre-specified covariates: ethnicity, highest education level, household composition, food shopping. MTL: Multiple Traffic Lights; N-S: Nutri-Score; WL: Warning label; PC: Positive Choice tick; RR: Relative Risk; CI: Confidence Interval.