Skip to main content

Table 7 Prevalence estimates and odds ratios for longstanding illness 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)Prevalencec

Analytic sample(N = 1689)Prevalence%

Analytic sample(N = 1689)Fully adjusted odds ratio(95%CI)d

Demographic factors

    

Gender

    

†Male

42.1 (1694)

40.9 (898)

1.00

-

Female

42.6 (1310)

41 (791)

1.02

[0.84,1.25]

Ethnic group

    

†White: UK

42.8 (584)

38.6 (352)

1.00

-

White: Mixed

48.4 (364)

50.5 (184)*

1.75**

[1.20,2.54]

Asian: Indian

40.2 (107)

36.6 (71)

1.03

[0.59,1.79]

Asian: Pakistani

48 (127)

42.1 (76)

1.18

[0.70,2.01]

Asian: Bangladeshi

39.9 (499)

38.3 (334)

1.01

[0.72,1.44]

Black: Caribbean

51.1 (139)

52.2 (67)*

1.87*

[1.09,3.22]

Black: African

31.5 (349)*

32.8 (174)

0.87

[0.58,1.31]

Other

43 (805)

42.7 (431)

1.36*

[1.00,1.86]

Nativity

    

†UK Born

43.2 (2342)

42.1 (1372)

1.00

-

Born overseas

38 (610)*

36 (317)*

0.77

[0.58,1.02]

Borough

    

†Newham

42.3 (863)

41.3 (421)

1.00

-

Tower Hamlets

43.1 (789)

41.7 (477)

1.02

[0.76,1.37]

Barking & Dagenham

41.9 (642)

40.8 (414)

0.98

[0.73,1.33]

Hackney

42 (710)

39.5 (377)

0.81

[0.59,1.11]

Socioeconomic factors

    

Parental economic activity

    

†Both unemployed

44.4 (277)

39.8 (186)

1.00

-

One parent employed

41.8 (922)

40.1 (574)

0.99

[0.67,1.45]

Both parents employed

41.3 (1024)

41.3 (671)

1.00

[0.65,1.53]

Lone parent employed

41.9 (229)

40.6 (143)

0.95

[0.58,1.58]

Lone parent unemployed

46.2 (171)

46 (100)

1.21

[0.72,2.01]

Doesn’t live with parent

41.4 (29)

40 (15)

0.92

[0.0,2.81]

Family affluence a

    

†Low

39.3 (303)

39.3 (178)

1.00

-

Moderate

43.2 (1534)

42.2 (912)

1.15

[0.82,1.61]

High

41 (1034)

39.4 (599)

0.99

[0.69,1.42]

Free school meals

    

†No meals

41.5 (1755)

41.1 (1101)

1.00

-

Receives free meals

43.2 (1188)

40.6 (588)

0.89

[0.68,1.16]

Environmental factors

    

Neighbourhood safety b

    

†Safe

38.2 (621)

38 (460)

1.00

-

Mixed

39.2 (755)

36.7 (570)

0.94

[0.72,1.22]

Not safe

47.3 (942)*

46.6 (659)**

1.35*

[1.03,1.78]

Neighbourhood aesthetics b

    

†Pleasant

37.5 (550)

36.6 (437)

1.00

-

Mixed

41.9 (677)

40.5 (511)

1.16

[0.89,1.53]

Unpleasant

44.2 (1051)**

43.7 (741)*

1.17

[0.89,1.54]

Neighbourhood walk-cycleabilityb

    

†Easy to walk/cycle

43 (474)

43.1 (364)

1.00

-

Mixed

40.1 (614)

39.2 (485)

0.81

[0.61,1.07]

Not easy to walk/cycle

41.1 (1074)

41 (840)

0.95

[0.74,1.23]

Proximity to businesses & services b

    

†Close by

41.9 (626)

39.9 (481)

1.00

-

Mixed

41.6 (806)

41.9 (580)

1.09

[0.85,1.40]

Far away

42.9 (892)

40.8 (628)

1.02

[0.79,1.31]

Likelihood ratio test v logistic regression

  

p = 0.39

 
  1. †Reference category.
  2. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
  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