Skip to main content

Table 4 Individual dietary guideline recommendation items at six months by study groups

From: The effects of a lifestyle-focused text-messaging intervention on adherence to dietary guideline recommendations in patients with coronary heart disease: an analysis of the TEXT ME study

 

Text-message intervention group

(n = 338)

Standard care group

(n = 351)

 

Guideline recommendation levels

n (%)

n (%)

RR (95% CI)

p value

 1. Serves of vegetables per week

   ≥ 35 serves per week

38 (11)

10 (3)

3.95 (2.00–7.79)

< 0.001

  25–34 serves per week

49 (15)

21 (6)

2.42 (1.49–3.95)

< 0.001

  15–24 serves per week

132 (39)

99 (28)

1.38 (1.12–1.71)

0.003

   < 15 serves per week

119 (35)

221 (63)

0.56 (0.47–0.66)

< 0.001

 2. Serves of fruits per week

   ≥ 14 serves per week

165 (49)

85 (24)

2.02 (1.63–2.50)

< 0.001

  10–13 serves per week

35 (10)

19 (5)

1.91 (1.12, 3.28)

0.015

  6–9 serves per week

65 (19)

110 (31)

0.61 (0.47, 0.80)

< 0.001

   < 6 serves per week

73 (22)

137 (39)

0.55 (0.43, 0.70)

< 0.001

 3. Use of poly and monounsaturated fatsa

334 (99)

345 (98)

1.01 (0.99–1.02)

0.511

 4. Use of margarine and unsaturated fats on breada

298 (88)

283 (81)

1.06 (1.00–1.12)

0.056

 5. ≥ 300 g of fish per weeka

152 (45)

91 (26)

1.83 (1.52–2.21)

< 0.001

 6. ≤ 1 takeaway meals per weekb

236 (70)

194 (55)

1.21 (1.09–1.34)

< 0.001

 7. Salt intake controla

282 (83)

211 (60)

1.39 (1.26–1.52)

< 0.001

 8. ≤ 14 standard alcoholic drinks per weekb

320 (95)

322 (92)

1.02 (1.00–1.04)

0.118

Mean levels of consumption

Mean (95% CI)

Mean (95% CI)

Mean difference (95% CI)

p value

 Serves of vegetables per week

19 (18–20)

13 (12–14)

5.94 (4.61–7.26)

< 0.001

 Serves of fruits per week

12 (11–12.5)

8 (7–9)

3.80 (2.78–4.83)

< 0.001

 Grams of fish per weekc

228 (207–250)

159 (139–179)

69.70 (40.68–98.72)

< 0.001

 Takeaway meals per weekc

1.4 (1.2–1.6)

2.2 (1.9–2.5)

−0.87 (− 1.22 – − 0.51)

< 0.001

 Standard alcoholic drinks per weekc

2.4 (1.7–3.1)

3.1 (2.4–3.9)

−0.74 (− 1.75–0.26)

0.066

  1. CI confidence interval, RR relative risk
  2. aRandomised groups (intervention/control) have been compared using the log-binomial regression adjusted for corresponding baseline values as binary variables
  3. bRandomised groups (intervention/control) have been compared using the log-binomial regression adjusted for corresponding baseline values as continuous variables
  4. cRandomised groups (intervention/control) have been compared using the analysis of covariance adjusted for the corresponding baseline values