Table 3 Predictors of weight loss maintainers in North America (vs. Europe): results of logistic regression analysis^a.

Variable	Unstandardized B	Odds ratio [95% CI]	p value	Effect size (Cohen’s d)
Step 1
Age	0.05	1.1 [1.0, 1.1]	<0.001	0.03
Gender, female (vs. male)	0.80	2.2 [1.3, 3.8]	0.00	−0.44
Current weight, kg	0.00	0.9 [1.0,1.0]	0.14	0.01
Lifetime maximum weight, kg	0.03	1.0 [1.02, 1.04]	<0.001	−0.02
Employed (vs. unemployed)	0.70	2.0 [1.44, 2.8]	<0.001	0.38
Duration of ≥9 kg loss, years.	0.27	1.00 [0.98, 1.0]	0.92	0.00
Education level	0.00	1.2 [1.1, 1.3]	0.00	−0.09
Income level	0.16	1.3 [1.3, 1.4]	<0.001	−0.15
Step 2
Self-weighing ≥weekly (<weekly)	0.62	1.9 [1.2, 3.0]	<0.01	−0.34
Fast food consumption, ≥weekly (vs. <weekly)	2.4	10.8 [4.6, 25.5]	<0.001	−1.30
Sit-down restaurant consumption, ≥weekly (vs. <weekly)	0.41	1.5 [1.1, 2.1]	0.02	−0.22
Body satisfaction	0.03	1.0 [1.0, 1.1]	0.01	−0.02
Physical functioning	0.03	1.0 [.97, 1.1]	0.33	−0.02

^aBold indicates significant differences. To guard against type 1 error due to multiple analyses, statistical significance was set to p < 0.01 and significance furthermore only interpreted for group differences that resulted in partial eta square values greater than 0.15, representing at least a medium effect size [32]. OR converted to Cohen’s d effect size using https://www.escal.site/ and as reported by Sanchez-Meca et al. [33].

Quick links

Search