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

Table 5 Regression models predicting High 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	Coeff	Z	P	Coeff	Z	P
BMI %tile	0.001	1.03	0.303	0.002	1.25	0.210	0.002	1.57	0.117	0.002	1.83	0.067
Age	0.033	0.93	0.353	0.033	0.96	0.335	0.015	0.44	0.659	0.015	0.45	0.563
PG (ref GED)	-0.108	-0.62	0.536	-0.042	-0.24	0.807	0.012	0.07	0.942	0.089	0.55	0.585
College (ref GED)	-0.038	-0.22	0.826	0.018	0.10	0.917	0.055	0.33	0.740	0.117	0.72	0.473
Tech College (ref GED)	0.066	0.35	0.723	0.116	0.64	0.523	0.108	0.62	0.538	0.164	0.97	0.334
Ethnicity (ref Anglo)	-0.070	-0.79	0.428	-0.119	-1.36	0.173	0.021	0.25	0.805	-0.027	-0.32	0.748
Social Desirability	0.000	0.08	0.937	0.000	0.01	0.995	0.04	0.77	0.439	0.004	0.77	0.443
Distance to Small Food Store	-	-	-	0.003	3.41	0.001	-	-	-	0.003	3.69	< .001
Distance to Fast Food	-	-	-	-0.001	-2.94	0.003	-	-	-	-0.001	-3.21	0.001
High Fat Veg Home Availability	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.165	3.60	< .001	0.169	3.79	< .001
High Fat Veg Preferences	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.174	3.22	0.001	0.174	3.31	0.001
Within Troop R ²	0.0246			0.0853			0.1515			0.2255
Between Troop R ²	0.0489			0.1372			0.1330			0.1634
Overall R ²	0.0368			0.1014			0.1591			0.2253

Step Four:
Distance to the nearest Small Food Store (SFS) was not associated with HFV Preferences (z = -0.22, p = 0.821) or Availability (z = 0.08, p = 0.936).
Distance to the nearest fast food restaurant was not associated with HFV preferences (z = -0.12, p = 0.908) or Availability (z = 0.25, p = 0.803)

ISSN: 1479-5868