Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.47(6) > 1081367

Oh, Choe, Kim, Lee, Paik, and Jang: Customer perception and expert assessment in restaurant food environment by region – Focused on restaurants in Suwon, Hwaseong city -∗

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the food environment, particularly focusing on restaurants in three areas (Suwon city, Hwaseong Byeongieom-dong, and Bibong-myun). Methods: A total of 662 persons were surveyed on customers' perceptions of the food environment in restaurants. A structured questionnaire composed of 30 questions on 7 factors, sanitation (4 items), displaying information (5), food quality (12), information on nutritional and healthy food choice (6), restaurant's accessibility (1), availability (1), and affordability (1) was used. In addition, an expert assessment of restaurant sanitation, and information on nutritional·healthy food choice was conducted through visiting 126 restaurants. Results: Scores (range of score: 1∼7) for each factors assessing the restaurant food environment were 5.06 for sanitation factors, 5.05 for displaying information factors, 5.13 for taste·appearance factors, and 4.35 for healthy menu factors. Informations on nutritional· healthy food choice showed a low rate: only 16.24% of the subjects answered that there is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods and 27.4% answered that menus contain nutritional information. Significant differences in food environment were observed by region (city, town, rural). The restaurants food environment in the rural area turned out to be poorer than that of the other two areas. In comparison of customer perception and expert assessment, significant differences were observed for ‘Employee appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy' (p < .05), and ‘There is a message encouraging the choice of healthy foods' (p < .05). Conclusion: This study provided evidence for differences of restaurant food environment by regions. In the rural area, there is a problem in restaurant's accessibility, availability, and affordability because of a lack of variety in menu items and restaurants. This results suggest that there is a need for more healthy food restaurants in the rural area.

References

1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Korea Health Statistics 2012: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V-3). Cheongwon: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2013.
2. Korea Rural Economic Institute. A base study on developing the consumer behavior survey for food. Seoul: Korea Rural Economic Institute;2013.
3. Suh YS, Jang JH, Kim HS, Chung YJ. Comparison of nutritional status of the Daejeon metropolitan citizens by frequency of eating out. Korean J Nutr. 2010; 43(2):171–180.
crossref
4. Lee D, Lee JC, Kim MH. Effect of menu calorie labels on menu sales and consumer's recognition at a Korean restaurant in a hotel. Korean J Community Nutr. 2013; 18(5):505–514.
crossref
5. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008; 29:253–272.
crossref
6. D'Angelo H, Suratkar S, Song HJ, Stauffer E, Gittelsohn J. Access to food source and food source use are associated with healthy and unhealthy food-purchasing behaviours among low-income African-American adults in Baltimore city. Public Health Nutr. 2011; 14(9):1632–1639.
7. Boehmer TK, Lovegreen SL, Haire-Joshu D, Brownson RC. What constitutes an obesogenic environment in rural communities? Am J Health Promot. 2006; 20(6):411–421.
crossref
8. Moore LV, Diez Roux AV, Nettleton JA, Jacobs DR, Franco M. Fast-food consumption, diet quality, and neighborhood exposure to fast food: the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 170(1):29–36.
crossref
9. Hearst MO, Pasch KE, Laska MN. Urban v. suburban perceptions of the neighbourhood food environment as correlates of adolescent food purchasing. Public Health Nutr. 2012; 15(2):299–306.
crossref
10. Lucan SC, Mitra N. Perceptions of the food environment are associated with fast-food (not fruit-and-vegetable) consumption: findings from multi-level models. Int J Public Health. 2012; 57(3):599–608.
crossref
11. Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, Brownell KD. Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(2):312–318.
crossref
12. Saelens BE, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Nutrition Environment Measures Study in Restaurants (NEMS-R): development and evaluation. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(4):273–281.
13. Minaker LM, Raine KD, Cash SB. Measuring the food service environment: development and implementation of assessment tools. Can J Public Health. 2009; 100(6):421–425.
crossref
14. Clark RA, Coffee N. Why measuring accessibility is important for public health: a review from the Cardiac ARIA project. Public Health Bull S Aust. 2011; 8(1):3–8.
15. Frank L, Glanz K, McCarron M, Sallis J, Saelens B, Chapman J. The spatial distribution of food outlet type and quality around schools in differing built environment and demographic contexts. Berkeley Plan J. 2006; 19:79–95.
crossref
16. Jeffery RW, Baxter J, McGuire M, Linde J. Are fast food restaurants an environmental risk factor for obesity? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006; 3:2.
crossref
17. Lytle LA. Measuring the food environment: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36(4 Suppl):S134–S144.
18. Giskes K, van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Mackenbach JP, Turrell G. Socioeconomic inequalities in food purchasing: the contribution of respondent-perceived and actual (objectively measured) price and availability of foods. Prev Med. 2007; 45(1):41–48.
crossref
19. Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Hollis-Neely T, Campbell RT, Holmes N, Watkins G, Nwankwo R, Odoms-Young A. Fruit and vegetable intake in African Americans income and store characteristics. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29(1):1–9.
20. Kim H, Yang I, Shin S. Effect of the service providers' perceived service quality on customer loyalty in restaurants. Korean J Community Nutr. 2000; 5(2):236–242.
21. Byun GI, Cho WJ. Family restaurant customers' quality evaluation and satisfaction depending on the physical environmental variables. Korean J Food Cult. 2006; 21(1):51–56.
22. Lee GR, Yoo YJ, Park GS. A study of the effect of environmental characteristics on overall service quality, and repurchase intentions in Korean foodservice firms. Korean J Food Cult. 2005; 20(6):661–667.
23. Jung MB, Kim SH, Kim YI. Impacts of hotel buffer restaurant's physical environment on both service quality and customer satisfaction as well as customer's loyalty – focused on the super deluxe hotels in Seoul. Korean J Tourism Res. 2010; 25(3):101–120.
24. Koo S, Park K. Dietary behaviors and lifestyle characteristics related to frequent eating out among Korean adults. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2013; 42(5):705–712.
crossref
25. Kim Y, Seo S, Kwon O, Cho MS. Comparisons of dietary behavior, food intake, and satisfaction with food-related life between the elderly living in urban and rural areas. Korean J Nutr. 2012; 45(3):252–263.
crossref
26. Statistics Korea. Korean statistical information service [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2013. [cited 2013 Jan 15]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=. MT_ZTITLE&parentId=K. MT_ZTITLE&parentId=K.
27. Monthly Restaurant. The customer behavior of eating out 2012 [Internet]. Seoul: Korea Food Service Information Co. Ltd.;2012. [cited 2014 Jan 15] Available from:. http://month.foodbank.co.kr/etc/search_view.php?secIndex=2863&page=15&section=&serial=&keyfield=all&key=?.
28. Agency Small Business. Commercial information systems [Internet]. Daejeon: Small Enterprise and Market Service;2008. [cited 2013 Jan 15] Available from:. http://sg.kmdc.or.kr/index.sg#/analy/result/D_205321_0/.
29. Hong K, Joung H. Restaurateur's willingness to participate in the healthy restaurant program in Seoul. Korean J Nutr. 2009; 42(3):268–277.
crossref
30. Hwang JJ. How does nutritional information about fast food menu items influence consumer choice behavior according to their health consciousness and nutritional knowledge? Korean J Hosp Adm. 2012; 21(2):93–112.
31. Yoo YJ, Lee JK, Choi YS. The evaluation of service employees' sanitary management in hotels. Korean J Food Cookery Sci. 2006; 23(5):565–572.
32. Wong F, Stevens D, O'Connor-Duffany K, Siegel K, Gao Y. Community Interventions for Health (CIH) collaboration. Community Health Environment Scan Survey (CHESS): a novel tool that captures the impact of the built environment on lifestyle factors. Glob Health Action. 2011; 4:5276.
crossref
33. Baranowski T, Missaghian M, Watson K, Broadfoot A, Cullen K, Nicklas T, Fisher J, O'Donnell S. Home fruit, juice, and vegetable pantry management and availability scales: a validation. Appetite. 2008; 50(2–3):266–277.
crossref
34. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th edition.Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall;2009.
35. Kye SH, Moon HK, Chung HR, Hwang SH, Kim WS, Moon HY. A study for the improvement of sanitary condition in Korean style-restaurant in Seoul city area (I) -evaluation on sanitation of working environment and facilities for the kitchen–. Korean J Food Cult. 1995; 9(5):457–465.
36. Kye SH, Moon HK, Chung HR, Hwang SH, Kim WS. A study for the improvement of sanitary condition in Korean style-restaurant in Seoul city area (II) -evaluation on sanitary management of cooking equipment and personal hygiene–. Korean J Food Cult. 1995; 10(1):1–10.
37. Kim SJ, Yi NY, Chang HJ, Kwak TK. Current status of sanitation management performance in Korean-food restaurants and development of the sanitary training posters based on their risk factors. Korean J Food Cult. 2008; 23(5):582–594.
38. Yu JL, Park DY. Korean family's perception of the importance of the quality of restaurants according to family life cycle. Korean J Community Nutr. 2002; 7(1):130–140.
39. Sohn CY. Perception of nutrition labeling on restaurant menus among adults in Suwon. Korean J Community Nutr. 2009; 14(4):420–429.
40. Chung HJ, Cheon HS, Kwon KI, Kim JY, Yoo KS, Lee JH, Kim JW, Park HK, Kim SH, Hong SM. The recognition and requirement of nutrition labeling in fast-food restaurants. Korean J Nutr. 2009; 42(1):68–77.
41. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Menu nutritional information manual [Internet]. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;2013. [cited 2014 Jan 20]. Available from:. http://www.mfds.go.kr/nutrition.
42. Hong K, Joung H. Developing a questionnaire to evaluate the healthy restaurant program. Korean J Nutr. 2011; 44(6):562–576.
crossref
43. Ma X, Barnes TL, Freedman DA, Bell BA, Colabianchi N, Liese AD. Test-retest reliability of a questionnaire measuring perceptions of neighborhood food environment. Health Place. 2013; 21:65–69.
crossref
44. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Access to affordable and nutritious food-measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences: report to congress [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service;2009. [cited 2014 Apr 10]. Available from:. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-administrative-publication/ap-036.aspx.

Table 1.
Structure of the questionnaire
Factors Questions Scale type Reference
Sanitation 4 7-point Likert scale Jung etc23, Yoo etc31
Displaying Information 5 Wong etc32
Food Quality 12 Baranowski T etc33, D'Angelo H etc6, Hwang30
Nutritional Information 6 Nominal scale(Y/N) Saelens etc12, Minaker etc13
Accessibility 1 7-point Likert scale Boehmer etc7, D'Angelo etc6
Availability 1
Affordability 1
Demographic 6 Nominal scale
Table 2.
Reliability and validity analysis
Factors Constructs Factor analysis Cronbach's α
Factor loading Eigen value (Total variance%)
Taste · appearance The consistent flavor and amount 0.795 4.645 (22.121) 0.928
The food tastes good 0.783
The attractive menu's composition 0.752
The adequate amount of the food 0.727
The visually attractive menu 0.712
The fresh ingredients 0.622
The various drinks 0.571
Healthy There are the menus for health (low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar et al.). 0.810 3.769 (17.946) 0.877
The menu relates the healthy 0.784
The menu of healthy diet (Diet Menu) introduces. 0.781
The menu made with ingredients for health 0.700
The menu made with recipe for health 0.686
Sanitation Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean. 0.834 3.689 (17.565) 0.921
Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean. 0.813
Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy 0.808
Inside air is pleasant 0.719
Displaying information Information is displayed for entrance, emergency exit, no-smoking section and rest-room 0.800 3.454 (16.449) 0.906
The menu shows the price for each dish. 0.786
The description of the dish in the menu is understandable. 0.764
Information is displayed for operation hours, reservations (conditions), closing time, and contact number. 0.720
The sign is easily readable. 0.646
The cumulative total variance 74.082
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) 0.936
Information on nutritional and healthy food choice Menu contains nutritional information 0.808
There are healthy foods.
Information There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods.
There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods.
There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill).
There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered (an opposite of ‘piled').
Table 3.
General characteristics of the subjects
  Variables Number (%)
Region Suwon 246 (37.2)
Byeongjeom 175 (26.4)
Bibong 241 (36.4
Gender Male 384 (58.0)
Female 278 (42.0)
Job Expert 89 (13.4)
Businessman 152 (23.0)
Service 91 (13.7)
Farmer·simple labor 90 (15.1)
Homemaker 85 (12.8)
Etc. (student et al.) 145 (21.9)
Frequency of eating out 1 & Over/day 133 (20.1)
4∼6 times/week 133 (20.1)
1∼3 times/week 346 (44.0)
2∼3 times/month 36 (4.6)
1 and less/month 14 (1.8)
Age 20∼29 years 182 (27.5)
30∼39 years 213 (32.2)
40∼49 years 174 (26.3)
50 years and more 93 (14.0)
Information sources of eating out Surrounding people 419 (63.3)
Internet 108 (16.3)
Newspaper· TV· magazine 66 (10.0)
Outdoor advertising 69 (10.4)
Reasons of visits Good taste 371 (56.0)
Good accessibility 97 (14.7)
Resonable price 88 (13.3)
Health 85 (12.8)
Atmosphere & service 21 (3.2)
Total 662 (100.0)
Table 4.
General characteristics of the subjects by regions
  General characteristics Byeongjeom Bibong Suwon χ2
Age (year) 20∼29 38 (21.7)1) 30 (12.4) 114 (46.3) 104.286∗∗∗2)
30∼39 76 (43.4) 68 (28.2) 69 (28.0)
40∼49 47 (26.9) 87 (36.1) 40 (16.3)
50 years and more 14 (8.0) 56 (23.2) 23 (9.3)
Job Expert 26 (14.9) 39 (16.2) 24 (9.8) 148.540∗∗∗
Businessman 39 (22.3) 48 (19.9) 65 (26.4)
Service 26 (14.9) 23 (9.5) 42 (17.1)
Farmer, simple labor 9 (5.1) 77 (32.0) 14 (5.7)
Homemaker 47 (26.9) 18 (7.5) 20 (8.1)
Etc. (student et al.) 28 (16.0) 36 (14.9) 81 (32.9)
Frequency of eating out 1 & Over/day 32 (18.3) 46 (19.1) 55 (22.4) 27.822∗∗
4∼6 times/week 42 (24.0) 65 (27.0) 26 (10.6)
1∼3 times/week 91 (52.0) 109 (45.2) 146 (59.3)
2∼3 times/month 5 (2.9) 17 (7.1) 14 (5.7)
less than once a month 5 (2.9) 4 (1.7) 5 (2.0)
Total 175 (100) 241 (100) 246 (100)  

1) n (%) 2) ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001

Table 5.
Customer perception of restaurant food environment by regions
Factors Total (n = 662) Byeongjeom (n = 175) Bibong (n = 241) Suwon (n = 246) F
Sanitation 5.06 ± 1.111) 5.24 ± 0.99a2) 5.03 ± 1.22ab 4.95 ± 1.07b 3.677∗3)
Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean. 5.09 ± 1.24 5.27 ± 1.16a 5.05 ± 1.37ab 4.98 ± 1.15b 2.953
Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean. 5.12 ± 1.20 5.37 ± 1.05a 5.07 ± 1.32b 5.00 ± 1.16b 5.134∗∗
Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy. 4.98 ± 1.24 5.07 ± 1.16 4.91 ± 1.38 4.98 ± 1.14 0.864
Inside air is pleasant. 5.04 ± 1.23 5.23 ± 1.11a 5.13 ± 1.35a 4.81 ± 1.17b 6.845∗∗∗
Displaying Information 5.05 ± 1.16 5.32 ± 0.93a 4.99 ± 1.06b 4.92 ± 1.36b 6.778∗∗
Information is displayed for entrance, emergency exit,
no-smoking section and rest-room.
4.74 ± 1.51 4.95 ± 1.39a 4.61 ± 1.70b 4.73 ± 1.40ab 2.593
The menu shows the price for each dish. 5.43 ± 1.34 5.83 ± 0.99a 5.25 ± 1.63b 5.33 ± 1.17b 10.859∗∗∗
The description of the dish in the menu is understandable. 5.46 ± 1.33 5.88 ± 0.95a 5.28 ± 1.60b 5.34 ± 1.20b 12.309∗∗∗
Information is displayed for operation hours, reservations
(conditions), closing time, and contact number.
4.42 ± 1.42 4.47 ± 1.42 4.37 ± 1.71 4.43 ± 1.50 0.186
The sign is easily readable. 5.26 ± 1.33 5.51 ± 1.19a 5.18 ± 1.55b 5.16 ± 1.17b 4.299∗
Taste· Appearance 5.13 ± 1.02 5.29 ± 0.88 5.08 ± 1.10 5.07 ± 1.01 2.736
The consistent flavor and amount 5.36 ± 1.17 5.57 ± 1.03a 5.33 ± 1.26b 5.23 ± 1.14b 4.557∗
The food tastes good 5.37 ± 1.18 5.58 ± 1.00a 5.34 ± 1.32b 5.25 ± 1.15b 3.991∗
The attractive menu's composition 5.12 ± 1.23 5.39 ± 1.10a 5.02 ± 1.35b 5.03 ± 1.16b 5.668∗∗
The adequate amount of the food 5.17 ± 1.17 5.27 ± 1.13 5.17 ± 1.28 5.10 ± 1.08 1.171
The visually attractive menu 5.03 ± 1.23 5.25 ± 1.18a 4.87 ± 1.35b 5.04 ± 1.12ab 5.034∗∗
The fresh ingredients 5.20 ± 1.19 5.35 ± 1.04a 5.27 ± 1.30a 5.02 ± 1.16b 4.578∗
The various drinks 4.68 ± 1.46 4.58 ± 1.60 4.58 ± 1.54 4.86 ± 1.60 2.931
Healthy menu 4.35 ± 1.19 4.45 ± 1.16 4.38 ± 1.24 4.24 ± 1.17 1.775
There are the menus for health(low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar etc.) ). 4.30 ± 1.31 4.46 ± 1.35 4.29 ± 1.33 4.20 ± 1.27 1.929
The menu relates the healthy. 4.49 ± 1.40 4.57 ± 1.40ab 4.63 ± 1.47a 4.30 ± 1.31b 3.598∗
The menu of healthy diet (Diet Menu) 3.59 ± 1.60 3.46 ± 1.65b 3.48 ± 1.67b 3.80 ± 1.48a 3.289∗
The menu made with ingredients for health 4.72 ± 1.35 4.91 ± 1.30a 4.85 ± 1.40a 4.45 ± 1.29b 8.195∗∗∗
The menu made with recipe for health 4.63 ± 1.34 4.81 ± 1.35a 4.68 ± 1.38ab 4.46 ± 1.27b 3.916∗

1) Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree'

2) a, b: Duncan's multiple comparisson (a > b)

Table 6.
Customer perception of information on nutritional and healthy food choice by regions
Information on nutritional and healthy food choice Total Byeong-jeom Bibong Suwon χ2
Menu contains nutritional information. 181 (27.4)1) 57 (32.5) 48 (19.9) 76 (30.8) 15.311∗2)
There are healthy foods. 182 (27.5) 63 (36.0) 59 (24.4) 60 (24.3) 10.571∗
There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods. 107 (16.2) 39 (22.2) 27 (11.2) 41 (11.6) 12.691∗
There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods. 56 (8.5) 7 (4.0) 21 (8.7) 28 (11.3) 8.746
There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill). 73 (11.0) 19 (10.8) 18 (7.4) 36 (14.6) 8.480
There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered
(an opposite of a double/piled).
93 (14.1) 21 (12.8) 41 (17.0) 31 (12.6) 8.218

1) ‘yes' n (%) 2) ∗p < 0.05

Table 7.
Comparison of customer perception of restaurant's Accessibility, Availability, and Affordability by regions
Factors Constructs Total Byeongjeom Bibong Suwon F
Accessibility How do you feel about moving away this restaurant? 4.93 ± 1.581 ) 5.18 ± 1.53a2) 4.65 ± 1.75b 5.02 ± 1.39a 6.484∗∗3)
Availability How do you feel about difficulties for selecting menus in the restaurant? 5.21 ± 1.47 5.44 ± 1.36a 5.06 ± 1.69b 5.18 ± 1.28ab 3.457
Affordability How do you feel about the burden of the food price? 4.86 ± 1.33 5.13 ± 1.31a 4.71 ± 1.44b 4.81 ± 1.20b 5.350∗∗

1) Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree' 2) a, b: Duncan's multiple comparison (a > b) 3) ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01

Table 8.
Comparison of customer perception and expert assessment about sanitation
Constructs Total Byeongjeom Bibong Suwon
Customer Expert t Customer Expert t Customer Expert t Customer Expert t
Employees' appearances and uniforms are clean and tidy. 4.98 ± 1.231) 4.70 ± 1.24 2.365∗2) 5.07 ± 1.56 4.59 ± 1.14 2.300 4.91 ± 1.38 4.48 ± 1.38 1.957 4.98 ± 1.14 5.02 ± 1.12 –0.232
Interiors, including walls, floors, dishes, and chairs are clean. 5.08 ± 1.24 5.04 ± 1.25 0.338 5.27 ± 1.16 5.14 ± 1.23 0.655 5.05 ± 1.37 4.87 ± 1.49 0.827 4.98 ± 1.15 5.14 ± 0.95 –0.848
Furnishings (crockery, cutlery, menus) are generally clean. 5.12 ± 1.20 5.03 ± 1.23 0.749 5.37 ± 1.05 5.19 ± 1.20 0.908 5.07 ± 1.32 4.80 ± 1.39 1.227 5.00 ± 1.16 5.14 ± 1.07 –0.725
Inside air is pleasant. 5.03 ± 1.23 4.83 ± 1.21 1.614 5.23 ± 1.11 5.03 ± 1.26 0.970 5.13 ± 1.35 4.70 ± 1.30 2.043 4.81 ± 1.17 4.81 ± 1.07 0.014

1) Mean ± SD, range of scores: 1 = ‘strongly disagree', 4 = ‘neutral', 7 = ‘strongly agree' 2) ∗p < 0.05

Table 9.
Comparison of customer perception and expert assessment about nutritional healthy food choice information
Constructs Total Byeongjeom Bibong Suwon
Customer n = 662 Expert n = 126 χ2 Customer n = 175 Expert n = 37 χ2 Customer n = 241 Expert n = 45 χ2 Customer n = 246 Expert n = 44 χ2
Menu contains nutritional information. 181 (27.4)1) 27 (21.6) 2.179 57 (32.6) 15 (40.5) 0.877 48 (19.9) 3 (6.5) 4.991 76 (30.9) 9 (20.5) 1.545
There is a message encouraging choice of healthy foods. 107 (16.2) 8 (6.4) 8.526∗2) 39 (22.3) 0 (0.0) 10.495∗∗∗ 27 (11.2) 2 (4.3) 2.434 41 (16.3) 6 (13.6) 0.149
There is a message encouraging choice of non healthy foods. 56 (8.5) 4 (3.2) 4.630 7 (4.0) 2 (5.4) 0.047 21 (8.7) 2 (4.3) 1.415 28 (11.4) 0 (0.0) 5.295
There is a message encouraging overeating (such as free foods and unlimited refill). 73 (11.0) 12 (9.6) 0.824 19 (10.9) 5 (13.5) 0.128 18 (7.5) 2 (4.3) 1.193 36 (14.7) 5 (11.9) 0.228
There is a menu that the amount for a serving can be lowered. 93 (14.1) 26 (20.8) 3.990 21 (12.0) 11 (29.7) 6.240∗ 41 (16.6) 7 (15.2) 0.690 31 (12.7) 8 (18.2) 1.249

1) ‘yes' n (%) 2) ∗p < 0.05

TOOLS
Similar articles