. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 1.

Published in final edited form as: Public Health Nutr. 2019 Mar 8;22(9):1624–1634. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019000132

Table 4-.

Adjusted^§ prevalence of marketing characteristics by racial segregation and corporate status

		RACIAL SEGREGATION ^§			CORPORATE STATUS^§
	N	White Dominant	Racially Mixed	POC Dominant	Corporate/ Franchise	Independently Owned

		% (95% CI)			% (95% CI)
Healthy Interior Advertisements	138	22.1 (12.3–36.5)	22.9 (14.3–34.7)	12.6 (4.1–32.7)	25.0 (15.4–38.0)	13.7 (7.2–24.5)
Unhealthy Interior Advertisements	138	68.7 (53.5–80.7)	61.3 (48.9–72.5)	60.0 (39.7–77.3)	74.3 (62.1–83.6)^d	51.0 (38.9–63.1)^e
Healthy Impulse Buys	139	25.7 (15.1–40.2)	29.7 (20.0–41.7)	35.3 (19.4–55.2)	32.2 (21.8–44.9)	28.0 (18.5–40.0)
Unhealthy Impulse Buys ^±	139	98.8 (91.6–100)^a	90.8 (84.8–96.7)^a,b	86.7 (77.0–96.4)^b	98.8 (92.6–100)^d	85.4 (79.3–91.4)^e

POC, people of color.

^§

Models are mutually adjusted for racial segregation and corporate status.

^±

Results are from a linear model because logistic model would not converge

Different superscripts distinguish significant differences (P ≤0.05) among racial segregation categories (a,b) and among corporate status categories (d,e). Categories sharing same superscript were not significantly different.