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

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

	Vigorous level of physical activity^a	Moderate level of physical activity^b	Walk/bike activity^c	Vigorous fitness/leisure^d	Moderate fitness/leisure^e
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)

Note: ***, ** and * indicates 1, 5 and 10% significance level, respectively
AOR adjusted odds ratio
^aAge group, gender, ever schooled, always lived in this village/town/city, fruit intake, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables
^bAge group, gender, marital status, ever schooled, and fruit intake were screened out as the confounding variables
^cAge group, gender, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables
^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
^eGender, marital status, ever schooled, always lived in this village/town/city, fruit intake, and poor SRH were screened out as the confounding variables

ISSN: 1471-2318