Skip to main content

Table 6 Intervention effects on energy balance related behaviours, mediators, mediator effects, 95% confidence intervals and percent mediation among girls

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

(α)

mediator

effect on

outcome

(β)

mediated effect

(α*β)

(95%CI)

%

mediation

screen viewing behaviour

(min/day)

-18.5 (-49.0 ;12.0)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

0.2

-16.0*

  

• subjective norm

 

-0.5

13.1*

  

• perceived control

 

0.6

-34.3*

  

• habit

 

-0.3

44.7*

  

active transport to school

(min/wk)

-2.8 (-9.6 ;4.0)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

0.1

2.6*

  

• perceived environment

 

0.1

0.1

  

• subjective norm

 

0.3

-1.6

  

• perceived control

 

-0.1

1.6

  

• habit

 

-0.1

1.2

  

sugar-containing beverage

consumption (ml/day)

-222.3 (-371.3;-73.2)*

    

• attitude

 

0.1

-126.4*

-9.5 (-70.6;51.6)

suppression

• subjective norm

 

-0.1

-15.6

1.9 (-10.2;13.9)

8.5

• perceived control

 

-0.4

-105.8*

37.3 (-73.2;147.7)

suppression

• habit

 

-0.3

124.2*

-34.3 (-95.2;26.6)

10.0

high caloric snack

consumption (portion/day)

0.2 (-0.2 ;0.5)

  

NA

NA

• attitude

 

-0.2

-0.4*

  

• subjective norm

 

0.3

0.1

  

• perceived control

 

0.1

-0.4*

  

• habit

 

0.2

0.4*

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