Skip to main content

Table 6 Prevalence estimates and odds ratios for fair/poor self-rated general health 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 = 1687)Prevalence%

Analytic sample(N = 1687)Fully adjusted odds ratio(95%CI)d

Demographic factors

    

Gender

    

†Male

21.8 (1723)

20.6 (899)

1.00

-

Female

26.8 (1315)**

28.6 (788)***

1.67***

[1.32,2.12]

Ethnic group

    

†White: UK

19 (590)

20.2 (351)

1.00

-

White: Mixed

25.5 (373)*

25.4 (185)

1.41

[0.90,2.20]

Asian: Indian

21.3 (108)

21.1 (71)

1.18

[0.61,2.27]

Asian: Pakistani

25.8 (128)

26.3 (76)

1.37

[0.75,2.51]

Asian: Bangladeshi

30.5 (501)**

29.9 (334)**

1.65*

[1.10,2.48]

Black: Caribbean

22.2 (144)

22.4 (67)

1.29

[0.67,2.51]

Black: African

24.5 (355)*

27.4 (175)*

1.81*

[1.15,2.86]

Other

23.2 (810)*

22 (428)

1.33

[0.91,1.93]

Nativity

    

†UK Born

25 (2372)

25.4 (1372)

1.00

-

Born overseas

19.5 (614)**

19.7 (315)*

0.64**

[0.46,0.90]

Borough

    

†Newham

25.8 (875)

28.8 (420)

1.00

-

Tower Hamlets

27.4 (793)

27.9 (476)

0.87

[0.62,1.21]

Barking & Dagenham

21.5 (657)*

21 (415)**

0.64*

[0.45,0.91]

Hackney

20.2 (713)**

18.4 (376)***

0.53**

[0.36,0.77]

Socioeconomic factors

    

Parental economic activity

    

†Both unemployed

28.8 (278)

29 (186)

1.00

-

One parent employed

25 (929)

24.7 (575)

0.81

[0.53,1.25]

Both parents employed

20.9 (1036)**

21.5 (671)*

0.82

[0.51,1.31]

Lone parent employed

21.6 (227)

22.9 (140)

0.85

[0.47,1.52]

Lone parent unemployed

28.1 (171)

30 (100)

1.06

[0.60,1.87]

Doesn’t live with parent

41.4 (29)

53.3 (15)

3.80

[1.24,11.66]

Family affluence a

    

†Low

25.6 (308)

26.3 (179)

1.00

-

Moderate

24.7 (1548)

25.5 (909)

1.05

[0.71,1.54]

High

22.6 (1048)

21.9 (599)

0.99

[0.65,1.50]

Free school meals

    

†No meals

22.2 (1783)

22.7 (1103)

1.00

-

Receives free meals

26.6 (1197)**

27.4 (584)*

1.01

[0.75,1.37]

Environmental Factors

    

Neighbourhood safety b

    

†Safe

18.6 (625)

18.7 (460)

1.00

-

Mixed

24.5 (758)**

24.6 (568)*

1.31

[0.95,1.80]

Not safe

27.7 (949)***

27.9 (659)***

1.45*

[1.04,2.01]

Neighbourhood aesthetics b

    

†Pleasant

20.1 (551)

20.5 (435)

1.00

-

Mixed

20.9 (681)

20.7 (513)

1.01

[0.73,1.41]

Unpleasant

28 (1056)***

29.1 (739)**

1.45*

[1.06,1.99]

Neighbourhood walk-cycleabilityb

    

†Easy to walk/cycle

19.8 (475)

20.1 (364)

1.00

-

Mixed

24.9 (618)*

25.1 (486)

1.32

[0.94,1.86]

Not easy to walk/cycle

25.7 (1076)*

25.7 (837)*

1.51*

[1.10,2.07]

Proximity to businesses & services b

    

†Close by

21 (629)

20.2 (476)

1.00

-

Mixed

23 (816)

23.4 (582)

1.13

[0.83,1.53]

Far away

27.9 (896)**

28.3 (629)**

1.51**

[1.12,2.04]

Likelihood ratio test v logistic regression

  

p = 0.47

 
  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