Table 4.
Regression coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) resulting from linear regression analyses with counts of food retailers within a network distance of 1000 m and kernel density estimates as exposure measure and the two outcomes: percentage of consumption in grams from ultra-processed food (UPFs) and percentage of consumption in kilocalories from UPFs (n = 8104)
| Counts within 1000-m street network | 1000-m kernel density estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of consumption from UPFs in | Percentage of consumption from UPFs in | ||||
| Grams | Kilocalories | Grams | Kilocalories | ||
| β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | ||
| Fast-food restaurant | a | a, b | a | a | |
| Zero | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| First tertile | − 0.3 (− 0.9; 0.4) | − 0.2 (− 1.0; 0.6) | 0.8 (− 0.2; 1.9) | 0.9 (− 0.3; 2.2) | |
| Second tertile | − 0.5 (− 1.3; 0.3) | 0.1 (− 0.8; 1.1) | 0.9 (− 0.2; 2.0) | 1.9 (0.5; 3.2) | |
| Third tertile | − 0.6 (− 1.6; 0.4) | − 0.7 (− 1.9; 0.5) | 0.3 (− 0.9; 1.6) | 0.9 (− 0.6; 2.5) | |
| Convenience stores | a | a | a | a | |
| Zero | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| First tertile | 0.2 (− 0.4; 0.7) | − 0.2 (− 0.9; 0.5) | 0.0 (− 0.6; 0.6) | 0.1 (− 0.6; 0.8) | |
| Second tertile | − 0.3 (− 1.0; 0.4) | − 0.6 (− 1.5; 0.3) | − 0.1 (− 0.7; 0.5) | − 0.3 (− 1.0; 0.4) | |
| Third tertile | − 0.8 (− 1.7; 0.1) | − 1.7 (− 2.8; − 0.6) | − 0.3 (− 1.1; 0.4) | − 0.9 (− 1.8; − 0.1) | |
| Restaurants | a, b | a, b | |||
| Zero | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| First tertile | − 0.8 (− 1.4; − 0.3) | − 0.4 (− 1.1; 0.3) | − 0.2 (− 1.0; 0.6) | 0.5 (− 0.5; 1.5) | |
| Second tertile | − 1.1 (− 18; − 0.3) | − 1.0 (− 1.9; − 0.1) | − 0.7 (− 1.6; 0.2) | − 0.0 (− 1.1; 1.1) | |
| Third tertile | − 2.2 (− 3.0; − 1.3) | − 2.4 (− 3.4; − 1.4) | − 1.9 (− 2.9; − 1.0) | − 1.7 (− 3.0 − 0.5) | |
| Supermarkets | a,b | a,b | a | a | |
| Zero | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| First tertile | − 1.0 (− 1.6; − 0.4) | − 1.1 (− 1.9; − 0.3) | − 0.6 (− 1.6; 0.3) | − 0.1 (− 1.2; 1.1) | |
| Second tertile | − 1.1 (− 1.8; − 0.4) | − 1.2 (− 2.1; − 0.3) | − 0.1 (− 1.2; 0.9) | 0.4 (− 0.9; 1.6) | |
| Third tertile | − 1.4 (− 2.2; − 0.5) | − 1.7 (− 2.7; − 0.7) | − 0.7 (− 1.8; 0.4) | − 0.3 (− 1.6; 1.1) | |
| Candy stores and cafés | a | a, b | a, b | ||
| Zero | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| First tertile | − 0.2 (− 0.8; − 0.4) | − 0.2 (− 1.0; 0.5) | − 0.1 (− 0.7; 0.4) | 0.3 (− 0.4; 1.0) | |
| Second tertile | − 0.2 (− 1.0; 0.5) | − 0.1 (− 1.1; 0.8) | − 0.3 (− 0.9; 0.3) | 0.1 (− 0.6; 0.9) | |
| Third tertile | − 0.7 (− 1.5; 0.1) | − 1.7 (− 2.1; − 0.2) | − 0.5 (− 1.2; 0.2) | − 0.6 (− 1.5; 0.3) | |
Coefficients were adjusted for age, sex, region of residency, educational attainment, urbanisation, marital status, total kilocalorie intake, and proximity to local food shops. Effect modification was tested in separate models by adding an interaction term between education and each of the proximity measure; and between urbanisation and each of the proximity measure
aSignificant effect modification by educational attainment (p < 0.05)
bSignificant effect modification by urbanisation levels (p < 0.05)