Skip to main content

Table 5 Intervention effects on energy balance related behaviours, mediators, mediator effects, 95% confidence intervals and percent mediation among boys

From: Why did soft drink consumption decrease but screen time not? Mediating mechanisms in a school-based obesity prevention program

 

intervention effect on

outcome

(Ï„)

(95% CI)

intervention

effect on

mediator

(α)

mediator

effect on

outcome

(β)

mediated effect

(α*β)

(95%CI)

%

mediation

screen viewing behaviour

(min/day)

-13.4 (-39.9 ;13.5)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

0.1

-13.0

  

• subjective norm

 

-0.1

5.2

  

• perceived control

 

-0.1

-17.2*

  

• habit

 

-0.4

40.1*

  

active transport to school

(min/wk)

1.1 (-5.4 ;7.5)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

0.56

-2.0*

  

• perceived environment

 

0.15

0.0

  

• subjective norm

 

0.78*

-0.1

  

• perceived control

 

0.26

0.37

  

• habit

 

0.1

0.4

  

sugar-containing beverage

consumption (ml/day)

-303.5 (-502.4;-104.5)*

    

• attitude

 

0.6*

-152.3*

-89.4 (-176.4;-2.4)*

4.5

• subjective norm

 

0.5

-35.4

-15.8 (-63.8;32.2)

suppression

• perceived control

 

0.3

-122.7*

-30.3 (-133.5;72.9)

suppression

• habit

 

-0.6*

155.8*

-92.7 (-184.8;-0.6)*

3.8

high caloric snack

consumption (portion/day)

-0.0 (-0.3;0.3)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

0.1

-0.3*

  

• subjective norm

 

0.7*

-0.0

  

• perceived control

 

0.2

-0.3*

  

• habit

 

-0.1

0.2*

  
  1. * (p < 0.05).
  2. NA = not applicable