Distance to food stores & adolescent male fruit and vegetable consumption: mediation effects

Table 4 Regression models predicting Low Fat Vegetable consumption

	Step One (Personal characteristics)			Step Two (Step 1 + nearest environmental variables)			Step Three (Step 1 + psychosocial variables)			Step Five (Step 1 + nearest environmental & psychosocial variables)
Variable	Coeff	Z	P	Coeff	Z	P	Std.	Z	P	Coeff	Z	P
BMI %tile	0.003	0.73	0.464	0.003	0.77	0.441	0.003	0.81	0.418	0.003	0.85	0.394
Age	0.070	0.56	0.573	0.069	0.57	0.568	0.029	0.26	0.797	0.030	0.27	0.786
PG (ref GED)	0.593	0.97	0.330	0.900	1.48	0.139	0.423	0.76	0.444	0.635	1.13	0.257
College (ref GED)	0.042	0.07	0.946	0.348	0.57	0.569	-0.084	-0.15	0.880	0.129	0.23	0.819
Tech College (ref GED)	0.136	0.21	0.834	0.214	0.34	0.737	0.069	0.12	0.907	0.130	0.22	0.824
Ethnicity (ref Anglo)	0.338	1.09	0.276	0.205	0.67	0.506	0.211	0.75	0.453	0.131	0.47	0.641
Social Desirability	0.009	0.45	0.656	-0.002	-0.10	0.923	0.006	0.31	0.753	-0.001	-0.04	0.964
Distance to Small Food Store	-	-	-	0.001	2.74	0.006	-	-	-	0.000	1.87	0.060
Low Fat Veg Preferences	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.057	3.04	0.002	0.050	2.70	0.007
Low Fat Veg Home Availability	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.181	4.58	< 0.001	0.177	4.48	< 0.001
Within Troop R ²	0.0100			0.0447			0.1888			0.2130
Between Troop R ²	0.1193			0.3366			0.5985			0.6124
Overall R ²	0.0338			0.0741			0.2190			0.2348

Step Four: Distance to the nearest Small Food Store (SFS) was associated with low fat vegetable preferences (z = 2.32, p < 0.020) but not low fat vegetable home availability (z = 0.47, p = 0.638)
Sobel test indicated that low fat vegetable preferences partially mediated (26%) the relationship between distance to nearest Small Food Store (SFS) and low fat vegetable intake (z = 2.13, p = 0.032)

ISSN: 1479-5868