The authors will like to apologize for their oversight in the Table 3 of the paper and incorporate the following modifications:
The term '95% Confidence Interval' is replaced by '95% Credible Interval' in Bayesian context.
The errors in the reported 95% Cr. I. owing to oversight in readjustment after converting from logit to odds ratios have been corrected so that the corrected version of Table 3 reads as below:
Table 3. Two-level logistic mixed effects models with LSOA-level random effects for psychological distress measured by GHQ-30
COLUMN 1, TABLE 3
R1. Model Predictors
R2.
R3.
R4. Built environment morphometrics
R5. Dwelling level variables
R6. Dwelling centred density
R7. Plot exposure (none vs. one bldg face)
R8. Plot exposure (more than one faces vs. one bldg face)
R9. Dwelling type (semi-detached vs. detached)
R10.Dwelling type (terraced vs. detached)
R11.Dwelling type (flat vs. detached)
R12.Land use configuration
R13.Land use mix (z-score)
R14.T2 vs. T1
R15.T3 vs. T1
R16.Density of bus stops
R17.Density of retail
R18.Density of community services
R19.Density of recreation & leisure facilities
R20.Density of business & offices
R21.Topological accessibility of streets (z-score)
RXX. represents the 'row number' of the Table 3. for reference and comparison across columns.
Results are expressed as odds ratio, 95% credible interval and p-value for the logistic regression. All models have been adjusted for individual level variables of age, alcohol consumption, social class, education and prevalence of chronic vascular morbidities
T: Tertile (T1, T2, T3 represents the lower, middle and upper tertiles respectively)
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05
†Model 1 comprises of built environmental morphometrics; Model 2 included neighbourhood deprivation captured by six domains of Welsh index of multiple deprivation and natural environment captured by standard deviation in slope and mean greenness index NDVI; Model 3 indicates the fully adjusted model.
Corrections to Table 3.
5 December 2014
The authors will like to apologize for their oversight in the Table 3 of the paper and incorporate the following modifications:
Table 3. Two-level logistic mixed effects models with LSOA-level random effects for psychological distress measured by GHQ-30
COLUMN 1, TABLE 3
R1. Model Predictors
R2.
R3.
R4. Built environment morphometrics
R5. Dwelling level variables
R6. Dwelling centred density
R7. Plot exposure (none vs. one bldg face)
R8. Plot exposure (more than one faces vs. one bldg face)
R9. Dwelling type (semi-detached vs. detached)
R10.Dwelling type (terraced vs. detached)
R11.Dwelling type (flat vs. detached)
R12.Land use configuration
R13.Land use mix (z-score)
R14.T2 vs. T1
R15.T3 vs. T1
R16.Density of bus stops
R17.Density of retail
R18.Density of community services
R19.Density of recreation & leisure facilities
R20.Density of business & offices
R21.Topological accessibility of streets (z-score)
R22.Street movement potential R1200m
R23.Street movement potential R3000m
R24.Street movement potential RNm
R25.Connectivity
R26.Natural Environment
R27.Topography (Standard deviation in slope)
R28.Greenness (Mean NDVI within 500m)
R29.Neighbourhood Deprivation
R30.WIMD domains
R31.Income deprivation
R32.Employment deprivation
R33.Health deprivation
R34.Education deprivation
R35.Housing deprivation
R36.Physical environment
R37.Random Effects
R38.Between LSOA variance (Mean, S.D.)
R39.Model Fit
R40.Bayesian DIC
--------------------------------------------------------
COLUMN 2, TABLE 3
R1. Model 1†
R2. O.R. (95% Cr.I.) p-value
R3.
R4.
R5.
R6. 1.02 (0.98, 1.06) p = 0.20
R7. 0.92 (0.46, 1.77) p = 0.40
R8. 0.78 (0.46, 1.31) p = 0.18
R9. 0.72 (0.41, 1.26) p = 0.12
R10.0.55 (0.26, 1.16) p = 0.06*
R11.0.72 (0.26, 1.90) p = 0.25
R12.
R13.
R14.0.72 (0.40, 1.31) p = 0.14
R15.0.51 (0.22, 1.21) p = 0.06*
R16.1.04 (0.99, 1.10) p = 0.07*
R17.0.99 (0.96, 1.02) p = 0.31
R18.1.01 (0.96, 1.06) p = 0.42
R19.0.98 (0.92, 1.04) p=0.24
R20.1.02 (1.00, 1.04) p=0.06*
R21.
R22.0.56 (0.32, 0.99) p = 0.02**
R23.0.95 (0.54, 1.60) p = 0.43
R24.1.53 (1.04, 2.25) p = 0.02**
R25.1.10 (0.82, 1.47) p = 0.25
R26.
R27.
R28.
R29.
R30.
R31.
R32.
R33.
R34.
R35.
R36
R37.
R38.0.054, 0.083
R39.
R40.690.02
----------------------------------
COLUMN 3, TABLE 3
R1. Model 2†
R2. O.R. (95% Cr.I.) p-value
R3.
R4.
R5.
R6.
R7.
R8.
R9.
R10.
R11.
R12.
R13.
R14.
R15.
R16.
R17.
R18.
R19.
R20.
R21.
R22.
R23.
R24.
R25.
R26.
R27.1.24 (1.01,1.60) p = 0.04**
R28.0.82 (0.60, 1.11) p = 0.10*
R29.
R30.
R31.1.03 (1.01, 1.07) p = 0.04**
R32.0.97 (0.93, 0.99) p = 0.03**
R33.0.99 (0.97, 1.01) p = 0.13
R34.1.00 (0.96, 1.03) p = 0.42
R35.1.00 (0.96, 1.04) p = 0.47
R36.1.02 (1.01, 1.05) p = 0.01**
R37.
R38.0.025 (0.039)
R39.
R40.675.53
------------------------------------------
COLUMN 4, TABLE 3
R1. Model 3†
R2. O.R. (95% Cr.I.) p-value
R3.
R4.
R5.
R6. 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) p = 0.32
R7. 0.94 (0.46, 1.83) p = 0.43
R8. 0.79 (0.44, 1.35) p = 0.20
R9. 0.76 (0.42, 1.35) p = 0.18
R10.0.48 (0.22, 0.99) p = 0.03**
R11.0.82 (0.30, 2.19) p = 0.35
R12.
R13.
R14.0.63 (0.33, 1.20) p = 0.08*
R15.0.42 (0.17, 0.99) p = 0.03**
R16.1.04 (0.98, 1.11) p=0.07*
R17.1.00 (0.96, 1.03) p = 0.45
R18.1.00 (0.94, 1.06) p = 0.47
R19.0.98 (0.92, 1.05) p = 0.33
R20.1.02 (0.99, 1.04) p = 0.08*
R21.
R22.0.54 (0.28, 0.98) p = 0.03**
R23.1.14 (0.50, 2.56) p = 0.38
R24.1.24 (0.68, 2.30) p = 0.25
R25.1.18 (0.85, 1.63) p = 0.16
R26.
R27.1.38 (1.00, 2.01) p = 0.05**
R28.0.79 (0.52, 1.23) p = 0.14
R29.
R30.
R31.1.03 (0.98, 1.08) p = 0.11
R32.0.96 (0.92, 0.99) p = 0.02**
R33.0.99 (0.97, 1.02) p = 0.31
R34.1.02 (0.97, 1.06) p = 0.21
R35.1.00 (0.95, 1.04) p = 0.46
R36.1.02 (0.99, 1.05) p = 0.04**
R37.
R38.0.042 (0.079)
R39.
R40.695.05
---------------------------------------------
RXX. represents the 'row number' of the Table 3. for reference and comparison across columns.
Results are expressed as odds ratio, 95% credible interval and p-value for the logistic regression. All models have been adjusted for individual level variables of age, alcohol consumption, social class, education and prevalence of chronic vascular morbidities
T: Tertile (T1, T2, T3 represents the lower, middle and upper tertiles respectively)
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05
† Model 1 comprises of built environmental morphometrics; Model 2 included neighbourhood deprivation captured by six domains of Welsh index of multiple deprivation and natural environment captured by standard deviation in slope and mean greenness index NDVI; Model 3 indicates the fully adjusted model.
Competing interests
No competing interests.