Skip to main content

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) of vegetable intake (servings) and physical activity, AOR(95%CI)

From: Associations of fruit & vegetable intake and physical activity with poor self-rated health among Chinese older adults

  Vigorous level of physical activitya Moderate level of physical activityb Walk/bike activityc Vigorous fitness/leisured Moderate fitness/leisuree
Vegetable intake
 0–4 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 5 1.01(0.78–1.29) 1.10(0.97–1.26) 1.57***(1.32–1.86) 0.05***(0.04–0.07) 0.30***(0.26–0.36)
 6–9 1.01(0.77–1.32) 1.08(0.94–1.24) 1.38***(1.15–1.65) 0.04***(0.03–0.06) 0.32***(0.27–0.37)
 10 1.67***(1.30–2.13) 1.51***(1.32–1.72) 1.98***(1.65–2.37) 0.05***(0.04–0.07) 0.30***(0.25–0.35)
  ≥ 11 3.75***(2.89–4.87) 3.14***(2.57–3.84) 1.96***(1.54–2.49) 0.01***(0.01–0.03) 0.15***(0.12–0.20)
Age group (years)
 60–69      1 [Reference]
  ≥ 70      0.42***(0.37–0.47)
Marital status
 Never married 1 [Reference]   1 [Reference]   
 Currently married 0.13***(0.11–0.15)   1.19*(1.00–1.42)   
 Cohabiting 0.15**(0.02–0.90)   1.03(0.27–3.98)   
 Separated/divorced 0.08***(0.04–0.17)   1.76**(1.05–2.96)   
 Widowed 0.08***(0.06–0.10)   0.98(0.79–1.20)   
Ever schooled
 No    1 [Reference]   
 Yes    0.95(0.83–1.08)   
Ethnicity
 Han majority 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]
 Ethnic minority 0.56(0.26–1.22) 0.55**(0.33–0.92) 0.70(0.40–1.20) 0.11***(0.03–0.38) 0.56(0.26–1.22)
Always lived in this village/town/city
 No   1 [Reference] 1 [Reference]   
 Yes   0.74***(0.67–0.82) 0.96(0.85–1.09)   
Fruit intake
 0    1 [Reference]   
 1    1.41***(1.15–1.74)   
 2    1.53***(1.29–1.82)   
 3    1.33***(1.08–1.63)   
  ≥ 4    1.25**(1.04–1.50)   
Poor SRH
 No   1 [Reference]    
 Yes   1.01(0.89–1.15)    
  1. Note: ***, ** and * indicates 1, 5 and 10% significance level, respectively
  2. AOR adjusted odds ratio
  3. aAge group, gender, ever schooled, always lived in this village/town/city, fruit intake, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables
  4. bAge group, gender, marital status, ever schooled, and fruit intake were screened out as the confounding variables
  5. cAge group, gender, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables
  6. dAge group, gender, marital status, ever schooled, always lived in this village/town/city, fruit intake, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables
  7. eGender, marital status, ever schooled, always lived in this village/town/city, fruit intake, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables