Skip to main content

Table 3 Association of FOPWL with understanding nutritional content, purchase intention and healthfulness perception compared with GDA.

From: Efficacy of front-of-pack warning label system versus guideline for daily amount on healthfulness perception, purchase intention and objective understanding of nutrient content of food products in Guatemala: a cross-over cluster randomized controlled experiment

Outcomea

Pooled

Adults

Children

 

FOPWL vs. GDA

FOPWL vs. GDA

FOPWL vs. GDA

Understanding of nutritional content indicator (single product), β (95%CI)

      

Model 1b

3.7

(-0.1,7.5)

7.0*

(1.2,11.6)

1.8

(-3.5,7.2)

Model 2c

3.7

(-0.1,7.5)

6.4*

(1.2,11.6)

1.7

(-3.5,7.1)

Understanding of nutritional content score (comparison task), β (95%CI)

      

Model 1

20.4***

(17.0,23.9)

25.9***

(21.1,30.7)

15.3***

(10.4,20.2)

Model 2

20.4***

(17.0,23.9)

25.9***

(21.1,30.7)

15.3***

(10.4,20.2)

Purchase intention indicator (single product), β (95%CI)

      

Model 1

-18.0***

(-23.3,-12.8)

-22.0***

(-28.9,-15.0)

-14.0**

(-21.8,-6.2)

Model 2

-18.1***

(-23.3,-12.8)

-22.0***

(-28.9,-15.0)

-14.0**

(-21.9,-6.1)

Purchase intention score (comparison task), OR (95%CI)

      

Model 1

4.5***

(2.9, 7.0)

5.7***

(2.3, 14.1)

3.7***

(2.0, 6.9)

Model 2

4.5***

(2.9, 7.0)

5.7***

(2.3, 14.4)

3.8***

(2.0, 7.2)

Healthfulness perception indicator (single product), β (95%CI)

      

Model 1

-13.2***

(-18.4, -7.9)

-14.0***

(-21.1, -7.0)

-12.5**

(-20.3, -4.8)

Model 2

-13.2***

(-18.4, -7.9)

-14.0***

(-21.1, -7.0)

-12.5**

(-20.3, -4.7)

Healthfulness perception score (comparison task), OR (95%CI)

      

Model 1

5.5***

(2.8, 10.8)

10.7***

(4.3, 26.7)

3.1**

(1.5, 6.5)

Model 2

5.6***

(2.8, 11.1)

10.8***

(4.3, 26.6)

3.2**

(1.5, 6.8)

  1. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001. Sample size: Adults = 178, Children = 177
  2. GDA: Guideline for Daily Amount system. FOPWL: front-of-package warning labeling system. OR: Odds Ratio. 95%CI: 95% confidence intervals
  3. aUnderstanding of nutritional content indicator (single product): Correct responses were scored 1, and the total number was obtained by adding the correct responses, converted into a 1-100 scale. Understanding of nutritional content score (comparison task): Correct responses were scored 1, and the total number was obtained by adding the correct responses, converted into a 1-100 scale. Purchase intention indicator (single product) was estimated from a Likert Scale (1–7) and converted into a 1-100 scale. Purchase intention score (comparison task): The correct responses were given a score of 1 and the total score was obtained by adding the number of correct answers. Healthfulness perception indicator (single product): was estimated from a Likert Scale (1–7) and converted into a 1-100 scale. Healthfulness perception score (comparison task): The correct responses were given a score of 1 and the total score was obtained by adding the number of correct answers
  4. b Model 1 estimates are β coefficients or Odds ratios of the interaction term between label condition and phase of exposure controlling for label condition (FOPWL vs. GDA) and phase of exposure (Phase 3 vs. Phase 1) age and sex
  5. c Model 2: model 1 + residency (rural/urban), ethnicity (indigenous/nonindigenous) and education (6 grades or greater/less than 6 grades). In children education was used as a continuous variable (grades of schooling)
Back to article page

Archives of Public Health

ISSN: 2049-3258