Trial Outcomes & Findings for Healthy Childcare Centre of the Future (NCT NCT04193410)
NCT ID: NCT04193410
Last Updated: 2025-12-16
Results Overview
Children's Body Mass Index (BMI) was assessed by height and weight; age- and sex-specific BMI cut-off points were used to define overweight and obesity. BMI z-scores were calculated using Dutch reference values. A z-score of 0 represents the population mean. A z-score \> 0 means a BMI higher than the population mean, a z-score of \< 0 means a BMI lower than the population mean, both can pose specific health-related risks.
COMPLETED
315 participants
Two years
2025-12-16
Participant Flow
Unit of analysis: Schools
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Medium implementers
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
Low implementers
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
143 6
|
172 5
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
136 6
|
166 5
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
7 0
|
6 0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Medium implementers
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
Low implementers
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
|
7
|
6
|
Baseline Characteristics
The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Medium Implementers
n=143 Participants
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
Low Implementers
n=172 Participants
As the present study investigated the effectiveness of health-promoting activities under real-world conditions and all participating schools were free to implement activities of their choice, there were no intervention or control groups. Instead, schools were categorised on the basis of the implemented activities' intensity. This resulted in the formation of two groups: medium implementers (six schools) and low implementers (five schools). The project's effectiveness on various health outcomes was compared between these two groups.
|
Total
n=315 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
9.21 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.00 • n=143 Participants
|
9.17 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.96 • n=172 Participants
|
9.19 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.98 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
72 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
105 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
177 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
71 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
67 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
138 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Western/Non-Western · Western
|
125 Participants
n=131 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
149 Participants
n=152 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
274 Participants
n=283 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Western/Non-Western · Non-Western
|
6 Participants
n=131 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
3 Participants
n=152 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
9 Participants
n=283 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
|
Study year
Four
|
48 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
52 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
100 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Study year
Five
|
37 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
62 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
99 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Study year
Six
|
58 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
116 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Socioeconomic status
Lowest tertile
|
32 Participants
n=131 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
22 Participants
n=153 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
54 Participants
n=284 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
|
Socioeconomic status
Middle tertile
|
39 Participants
n=131 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
47 Participants
n=153 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
86 Participants
n=284 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
|
Socioeconomic status
Highest tertile
|
60 Participants
n=131 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
84 Participants
n=153 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
144 Participants
n=284 Participants • The number analysed in this row differs from the overall number of participants, as we could not collect baseline data in all participants for this variable.
|
|
BMI z-score
|
-0.15 Z-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.82 • n=143 Participants
|
-0.10 Z-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.94 • n=172 Participants
|
-0.13 Z-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.89 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Overweight/obese
Overweight/obese
|
43 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
21 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
64 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Overweight/obese
Normal weight
|
100 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
151 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
251 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Waist circumference
|
56.84 centimeters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.66 • n=143 Participants
|
58.62 centimeters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.77 • n=172 Participants
|
57.81 centimeters
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.96 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Physical activity summary score
|
3.04 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64 • n=143 Participants
|
2.94 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67 • n=172 Participants
|
2.98 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.66 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Vegetables at lunch
%yes
|
35 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
44 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
79 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Healthy dietary behaviours
|
5.57 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.96 • n=143 Participants
|
5.56 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.95 • n=172 Participants
|
5.56 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.95 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Soft drink consumption
|
4.31 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.74 • n=143 Participants
|
4.06 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.78 • n=172 Participants
|
4.17 mean days/week
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.76 • n=315 Participants
|
|
School water consumption
|
1.43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.22 • n=143 Participants
|
1.25 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.13 • n=172 Participants
|
1.33 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.17 • n=315 Participants
|
|
Fruit at lunch
%yes
|
49 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
59 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
108 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Fruit at lunch
%no
|
94 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
113 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
207 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Vegetables at lunch
%no
|
108 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
128 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
236 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Grains at lunch
%yes
|
132 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
161 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
293 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Grains at lunch
%no
|
11 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
11 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Dairy at lunch
%yes
|
53 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
111 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Dairy at lunch
%no
|
90 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
114 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
204 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Water at lunch
%yes
|
47 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
46 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
93 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Water at lunch
%no
|
96 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
126 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
222 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Butter at lunch
%yes
|
85 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
107 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
192 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
Butter at lunch
%no
|
58 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
65 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
123 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
At least two healthy food groups at lunch
%yes
|
125 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
152 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
277 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
|
At least two healthy food groups at lunch
%no
|
18 Participants
n=143 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=172 Participants
|
38 Participants
n=315 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
Children's Body Mass Index (BMI) was assessed by height and weight; age- and sex-specific BMI cut-off points were used to define overweight and obesity. BMI z-scores were calculated using Dutch reference values. A z-score of 0 represents the population mean. A z-score \> 0 means a BMI higher than the population mean, a z-score of \< 0 means a BMI lower than the population mean, both can pose specific health-related risks.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
BMI Z-score
T0 (baseline)
|
-0.15 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.82
|
-0.10 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.94
|
|
BMI Z-score
T1 (after one year)
|
-0.14 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
-0.03 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.97
|
|
BMI Z-score
T2 (after two years)
|
-0.10 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.88
|
-0.05 Z-score
Standard Deviation 0.98
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
A composite score for healthy dietary behaviours was computed from four separate questions. This score was calculated by averaging the weekly consumption (ranging from never (0) to every day (7)) of breakfast consumption and intake of fruit, warm and raw vegetables, and water throughout the day, as reported in the parental questionnaire.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=114 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=142 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Healthy Dietary Behaviours
T0 (baseline)
|
5.57 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.96
|
5.56 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.95
|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Healthy Dietary Behaviours
T1 (after one year)
|
5.38 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.94
|
5.56 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Healthy Dietary Behaviours
T2 (after two years)
|
5.45 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
5.52 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 0.84
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
Assessed using the validated Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C).The PAQ-C is a self-administered,7-day recall instrument, which provides a summary physical activity score derived from eight items, each scored on a 5-point scale. Item 1 (spare time activity) from no activity = 1; 7 times or more = 5. Items 2 to 7 (PE, lunch, right after school, evening, weekends) from lowest activity response = 1 or highest activity response = 5. Item 8 (mean of all days of the week) from none = 1; very often = 5. Item 9 (identifies students who are unusual active during the previous week). By adding up all means of the first eight items in PAQ-C, a summative score of physical activity is obtained. A score of 1 indicates low physical activity level, whereas a score of 5 indicates high physical activity level.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Child Physical Activity Behaviour (Child-reported)
T0 (baseline)
|
3.04 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.64
|
2.94 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.67
|
|
Child Physical Activity Behaviour (Child-reported)
T1 (after one year)
|
3.19 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.58
|
3.25 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
|
|
Child Physical Activity Behaviour (Child-reported)
T2 (after two years)
|
3.12 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.62
|
3.17 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.65
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: Number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
Waist circumference is measured with a measuring tape to the nearest 0.1 cm, following the World Health Organisation's assessment protocol.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Child Waist Circumference
T0 (baseline)
|
56.84 centimeters
Standard Deviation 4.66
|
58.62 centimeters
Standard Deviation 6.77
|
|
Child Waist Circumference
T1 (after one year)
|
58.49 centimeters
Standard Deviation 5.64
|
59.40 centimeters
Standard Deviation 6.68
|
|
Child Waist Circumference
T2 (after two years)
|
61.12 centimeters
Standard Deviation 5.94
|
61.57 centimeters
Standard Deviation 7.11
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
Soft drink consumption during the past week was derived from the parental questionnaire ranging from never (0) to every day (7).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=114 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=142 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Soft Drink Consumption
T0 (baseline)
|
4.31 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.74
|
4.06 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.78
|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Soft Drink Consumption
T2 (after two years)
|
3.35 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.61
|
3.43 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
|
Mean Number of Days Per Week of Soft Drink Consumption
T1 (after one year)
|
4.07 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
3.63 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 2.88
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
Water consumption during school hours was derived from the child questionnaire ranging from never (0) to every day (3).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Water Consumption During School Hours
T0 (baseline)
|
1.43 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.22
|
1.25 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.13
|
|
Water Consumption During School Hours
T1 (after one year)
|
1.47 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.13
|
1.40 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.16
|
|
Water Consumption During School Hours
T2 (after two years)
|
1.63 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.20
|
1.73 mean days/week
Standard Deviation 1.17
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Fruit Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
34.3 percentage of yes
|
34.3 percentage of yes
|
|
Fruit Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
31.4 percentage of yes
|
26.8 percentage of yes
|
|
Fruit Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
22.8 percentage of yes
|
23.5 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Vegetable Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
24.5 percentage of yes
|
25.6 percentage of yes
|
|
Vegetable Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
31.4 percentage of yes
|
26.8 percentage of yes
|
|
Vegetable Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
19.9 percentage of yes
|
19.9 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Grain Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
92.3 percentage of yes
|
93.6 percentage of yes
|
|
Grain Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
94.2 percentage of yes
|
93.5 percentage of yes
|
|
Grain Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
94.9 percentage of yes
|
92.8 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Dairy Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
37.1 percentage of yes
|
33.7 percentage of yes
|
|
Dairy Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
39.4 percentage of yes
|
39.3 percentage of yes
|
|
Dairy Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
48.5 percentage of yes
|
38.0 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Water Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
32.9 percentage of yes
|
26.7 percentage of yes
|
|
Water Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
38.0 percentage of yes
|
31.0 percentage of yes
|
|
Water Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
44.9 percentage of yes
|
38.6 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Butter Consumption at Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
59.4 percentage of yes
|
62.2 percentage of yes
|
|
Butter Consumption at Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
59.1 percentage of yes
|
60.7 percentage of yes
|
|
Butter Consumption at Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
55.1 percentage of yes
|
56.6 percentage of yes
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Two yearsPopulation: The number analysed at T1 and T2 corresponds to the number of participants that were not LOF at T1 and T2.
The child lunch questionnaire assessed children's consumption of certain food types during lunch. The items were summarised into six dichotomous (yes/no) food types: fruits, vegetables, grains (bread and cereals), dairy (milk/yoghurt and cheese), water, and butter. To shed more light on the nutritional value of the children's lunches, the different food types consumed were summed, and a dichotomous variable was created indicating whether children consumed at least two of the food types during lunch.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Medium implementers
n=143 Participants
Participants from schools defined as medium implementers
|
Low implementers
n=172 Participants
Participants defined as low implementers
|
|---|---|---|
|
Consumption of at Least Two Healthy Food Groups During Lunch
T0 (baseline)
|
87.4 percentage of yes
|
88.4 percentage of yes
|
|
Consumption of at Least Two Healthy Food Groups During Lunch
T1 (after one year)
|
86.1 percentage of yes
|
88.7 percentage of yes
|
|
Consumption of at Least Two Healthy Food Groups During Lunch
T2 (after two years)
|
89.7 percentage of yes
|
86.7 percentage of yes
|
Adverse Events
All participants
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place