Skip to main content

Table 3 Prevalence estimates and odds ratios for symptoms of depression on the Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ > =8) by selected demographic, socioeconomic and environmental factors

From: Individual socio-demographic factors and perceptions of the environment as determinants of inequalities in adolescent physical and psychological health: the Olympic Regeneration in East London (ORiEL) study

 

Full sample(N)Prevalence%c

Analytic sample(N = 1641)Prevalence%

Analytic sample(N = 1641)Fully adjusted odds ratio(95%CI)d

Demographic factors

    

Gender

    

†Male

18.4 (1584)

16.2 (872)

1.00

-

Female

27.5 (1237)***

27.4 (769)***

2.06***

[1.60,2.65]

Ethnic group

    

†White: UK

24.8 (552)

25.2 (345)

1.00

-

White: Mixed

24.2 (343)

25 (180)

1.04

[0.67,1.63]

Asian: Indian

15.8 (101)

11.8 (68)*

0.41*

[0.18,0.91]

Asian: Pakistani

24.6 (122)

23.7 (76)

0.82

[0.44,1.53]

Asian: Bangladeshi

18.5 (487)*

17.5 (326)*

0.66

[0.43,1.03]

Black: Caribbean

20.7 (135)

24.2 (66)

1.07

[0.56,2.05]

Black: African

21.1 (313)

19.1 (162)

0.79

[0.48,1.29]

Other

23.8 (741)

21.5 (418)

0.88

[0.61,1.27]

Nativity

    

†UK Born

22.3 (2222)

21.7 (1337)

1.00

-

Born overseas

22.2 (554)

20.4 (304)

1.02

[0.73,1.45]

Borough

    

†Newham

24.5 (795)

22.9 (406)

1.00

-

Tower Hamlets

19.3 (751)*

19.3 (466)

0.78

[0.54,1.14]

Barking & Dagenham

24.4 (607)

23 (400)

0.91

[0.62,1.34]

Hackney

21.6 (668)

20.9 (369)

0.80

[0.54,1.19]

Socioeconomic factors

    

Parental economic activity

    

†Both unemployed

25.6 (262)

23.1 (182)

1.00

-

One parent employed

21.5 (871)

21.8 (559)

0.84

[0.53,1.33]

Both parents employed

21.2 (970)

20.4 (652)

0.72

[0.43,1.20]

Lone parent employed

25.3 (217)

22.3 (139)

0.71

[0.39,1.31]

Lone parent unemployed

20.9 (163)

18.8 (96)

0.52

[0.27,1.00]

Doesn’t live with parent

29.6 (27)

46.2 (13)

2.23

[0.67,7.41]

Family affluence a

    

†Low

25.3 (273)

25.5 (165)

1.00

-

Moderate

22.4 (1459)

21.6 (885)

0.83

[0.55,1.24]

High

21.4 (967)

20.1 (591)

0.73

[0.47,1.13]

Free school meals

    

†No meals

21.6 (1667)

21.3 (1074)

1.00

-

Receives free meals

23.3 (1106)

21.7 (567)

0.91

[0.66,1.25]

Environmental factors

    

Neighbourhood safety b

    

†Safe

16.1 (597)

15.5 (446)

1.00

-

Mixed

19.7 (731)

18.9 (556)

1.06

[0.75,1.51]

Not safe

29.3 (895)***

27.9 (639)***

1.53*

[1.08,2.17]

Neighbourhood aesthetics b

    

†Pleasant

15.8 (537)

13.8 (427)

1.00

-

Mixed

19.5 (647)

19.3 (493)*

1.41

[0.97,2.05]

Unpleasant

28.2 (997)***

27.5 (721)***

2.09***

[1.46,2.99]

Neighbourhood walk-cycleabilityb

    

†Easy to walk/cycle

21.4 (454)

20.6 (350)

1.00

-

Mixed

23.8 (589)

23 (470)

1.12

[0.79,1.59]

Not easy to walk/cycle

21.5 (1039)

21 (821)

1.09

[0.79,1.51]

Proximity to businesses & services b

    

†Close by

20.1 (602)

20 (465)

1.00

-

Mixed

19.8 (774)

19.7 (563)

0.93

[0.67,1.28]

Far away

25.7 (860)*

24.1 (613)

1.17

[0.86,1.60]

Likelihood ratio test v logistic regression

  

p = 0.31

 
  1. †Reference category.
  2. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
  3. a0 to 2 items = low score; 3 to 5 items = moderate score; 6 to 9 items = high score.
  4. bIndividual items were summed were summed for each scale and split into tertiles owing to the skewed distribution.
  5. cFull sample N varies by each outcome due to missing data.
  6. dAdjusted for all demographic, socioeconomic and environmental indicators accounting for clustering within schools.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us