Table 2.
Adjusted means and changes over time in children’s beverage consumption, weight status, and body mass by study group, n=154
| Difference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-Up | Point Est. | (95% CI) | |
| Beverage consumption (ounces/day) | ||||
| All less-healthy beveragesa | ||||
| Intervention group | 13.1 | 10.8 | −2.3 | (−7.2, 2.6) |
| Control group | 13.9 | 17.5 | 3.6 | (−0.8, 7.9) |
| Difference | −5.9 | (−11.2, −0.6) | ||
| All healthier beveragesa | ||||
| Intervention group | 13.8 | 18.8 | 5.0 | (0.5, 9.4) |
| Control group | 8.3 | 9.8 | 1.5 | (−2.9, 5.9) |
| Difference | 3.5 | (−2.6, 9.5) | ||
| 100% juice | ||||
| Intervention group | 3.4 | 1.5 | −1.9 | (−3.4, −0.4) |
| Control group | 2.1 | 2.0 | −0.03 | (−1.2, 1.1) |
| Difference | −1.9 | (−3.5, −0.2) | ||
| Total SSBs excluding sweetened milk | ||||
| Intervention group | 2.5 | 4.3 | 1.8 | (−1.3, 4.8) |
| Control group | 0.5 | 4.7 | 4.2 | (1.4, 7.0) |
| Difference | −2.4 | (−5.5, 0.7) | ||
| Unsweetened high−fat (2% or whole) milk | ||||
| Intervention group | 4.8 | 2.7 | −2.1 | (−4.3, 0.03) |
| Control group | 9.5 | 8.4 | −1.1 | (−3.4, 1.2) |
| Difference | −1.0 | (−3.9, 1.9) | ||
| Sweetened milk | ||||
| Intervention group | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | (−1.2, 1.4) |
| Control group | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.02 | (−0.9, 0.9) |
| Difference | 0.1 | (−1.4, 1.5) | ||
| Total watera | ||||
| Intervention group | 13.7 | 17.6 | 4.0 | (−0.3, 8.2) |
| Control group | 6.6 | 8.0 | 1.4 | (−2.9, 5.7) |
| Difference | 2.6 | (−3.2, 8.4) | ||
| Tap water | ||||
| Intervention group | 6.5 | 8.6 | 2.1 | (−1.7, 5.9) |
| Control group | 1.3 | 0.8 | −0.5 | (−3.5, 2.6) |
| Difference | 2.5 | (−2.1, 7.2) | ||
| Bottled water | ||||
| Intervention group | 7.0 | 8.7 | 1.7 | (−1.8, 5.2) |
| Control group | 5.5 | 7.0 | 1.6 | (−1.6, 4.7) |
| Difference | 0.1 | (−4.0, 4.3) | ||
| Unsweetened low− or non−fat milk | ||||
| Intervention group | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.0 | (−0.5, 2.5) |
| Control group | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.1 | (−0.9, 1.0) |
| Difference | 0.9 | (−0.7, 2.6) | ||
| Weight status & body mass index (BMI) | ||||
| Overweight/obese statusb | ||||
| Intervention group | 49% | 46% | −3% | (−10%, 3%) |
| Control group | 36% | 38% | 3% | (−4%, 9%) |
| Difference | −6% | (−15%, 3%) | ||
| BMI percentile | ||||
| Intervention group | 67.6 | 68.3 | 0.7 | (−1.3, 2.6) |
| Control group | 78.8 | 78.2 | −0.5 | (−3.6, 2.5) |
| Difference | 1.2 | (−2.5, 4.9) | ||
| Absolute BMI (kg/m2) | ||||
| Intervention group | 16.2 | 16.4 | 0.2 | (−0.1, 0.5) |
| Control group | 17.2 | 17.4 | 0.1 | (−0.2, 0.4) |
| Difference | 0.03 | (−0.2, 0.3) | ||
Notes. BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage. The table shows unstandardized coefficients from generalized linear regressions controlling sociodemographics and, for dietary outcomes and absolute BMI, child’s age and sex. Models accounted for clustering by including classroom fixed effects and clustering standard errors within children. Classroom-level intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from <0.01 to 0.07 and center-level ICCs ranged from <0.01 to 0.02 (see Supplemental Table 3). Bolded coefficients and CIs are statistically significant at p<0.05.
To estimate changes in larger beverage categories (i.e., total water, all healthier beverages, and all less-healthy beverages), we first summed consumption across subcategories (e.g., tap and bottled water), then estimated the generalized linear regressions described above. Changes in consumption of the subcategories do not perfectly sum to the change in consumption of the larger beverage categories due to adjustment for covariates.
Results for proportion overweight/obese are reported as predicted probabilities of being in the overweight/obese category and as marginal effects (i.e., percentage point change in likelihood of being in the overweight/obese category).