Geography Influences Dietary Intake, Physical Activity and Weight Status of Adolescents

Table 2

The diet quality and physical activity levels of rural and urban students in 2005 and 2008.

	2005		2008		𝑃-value
	Rural (𝑛=2685)	Urban (𝑛=2185)	Rural (𝑛=1052)	Urban (𝑛=4033)
	Diet quality*
Poor^†	1411 (52.6)^a	1041 (47.6)^b	542 (51.5)	2049 (50.8)^c	<.001^ab;  .016^bc
Average	1166 (43.4)^a	1038 (47.5)^b	461 (43.8)	1803 (44.7)^c	.005^ab;  .036^bc
Superior	108 (4.0)	106 (4.9)	49 (4.7)	181 (4.5)	All >.05
	PAQ-C^‡§
PAQ-c Score^∥	2.87±.03^a	2.90±.03	3.00±.04^b	2.88±.03^c	.003^ab;  .008^bc

*Diet quality is based on whether participants met minimum food group recommendations for Eating Well With Canada’s Food Guide and was classified as poor (0-1 food group), average (2-3 food groups), or superior (all 4 food groups).
^†Reported as n (%), superscripts in each row indicate source of significant differences.
^‡ PAQ-C: Scores range from 1 (no physical activity) to 5 (high amount of physical activity) and are adjusted for SES, sex and age. A score of 3 is considerate moderate activity.
^§ Sample size for PAQ-C: (rural 2005: 𝑛=2423, urban 2005: 𝑛=1938, rural 2008: 𝑛=976, urban 2008: 𝑛=3097), significant main effect for year (𝑃=.024) and an interaction (𝑃=.033).
^∥Reported as Mean ± standard error. As a follow-up to significant interactions superscripts in each row indicate source of significant differences at 𝑃<.05 using a test of simple effects to compare differences by year and by residence.