Table 4 Summary of regression models for reported noticing and use of kcal labelling

From: Evaluating the association between the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling and energy consumed using observational data from the out-of-home food sector in England

 

Noticed kcal labels

odds ratio (95% CI)

Used kcal labels

odds ratio (95% CI)

Post-implementation (versus pre-implementation)

2.25 (1.84 to 2.73)

P < 0.001

2.15 (1.62 to 2.85)*

P < 0.001

Age (in years)

0.99 (0.99 to 0.99)

P < 0.001

1.00 (1.00 to 1.01)

P = 0.504

Male (versus female)

0.71 (0.62 to 0.81)

P < 0.001

0.53 (0.41 to 0.69)

P < 0.001

Non-white (versus white)

0.89 (0.73 to 1.09)

P = 0.251

0.69 (0.47 to 1.01)

P = 0.055

Low SEP (versus high SEP)

0.57 (0.49 to 0.66)

P < 0.001

0.36 (0.27 to 0.47)

P < 0.001

Midday (versus evening)

1.07 (0.87 to 1.32)

P = 0.554

1.09 (0.76 to 1.55)

P = 0.643

Weekend (versus weekday)

1.04 (0.83 to 1.30)

P = 0.711

0.81 (0.54 to 1.21)

P = 0.296

Entertainment (versus cafes)

0.38 (0.11 to 1.38)

P = 0.089

0.24 (0.05 to 1.07)

P = 0.027

Fast food (versus cafes)

1.04 (0.79 to 1.35)

P = 0.797

0.77 (0.53 to 1.13)

P = 0.176

Pubs (versus cafes)

1.81 (1.35 to 2.44)

P < 0.001

0.90 (0.58 to 1.40)

P = 0.631

Restaurants (versus cafes)

1.28 (0.94 to 1.75)

P = 0.121

0.84 (0.52 to 1.36)

P = 0.476

IMD2 (versus IMD1)

0.76 (0.56 to 1.03)

P = 0.075

0.83 (0.53 to 1.31)

P = 0.414

IMD3 (versus IMD1)

0.98 (0.74 to 1.30)

P = 0.893

0.83 (0.53 to 1.27)

P = 0.375

IMD4 (versus IMD1)

0.78 (0.58 to 1.06)

P = 0.102

0.81 (0.49 to 1.33)

P = 0.396

IMD5 (versus IMD1)

0.68 (0.51 to 0.89)

P = 0.006

0.71 (0.45 to 1.11)

P = 0.131

Number of observations

5,430

5,447

Pseudo R2

0.060

0.144

  1. Reference categories in parentheses. IMD1 represents the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom, and IMD5 represents the least deprived areas.
Back to article page