Table 1.
Sample characteristics overall and by categories of economic residential segregation; MOVE-se Academias study, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2014–2015
| Economic residential segregation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall sample (n 1301) |
Higha (n 361) |
Mediumb (n 711) |
Lowc (n 299) |
|||||
| Mean or % | 95 % CI | Mean or % | 95 % CI | Mean or % | 95 % CI | Mean or % | 95 % CI | |
Mean local  statistic |
1·0 | 0·9, 1·1 | 2·4 | 2·3, 2·4b,c | 1·2 | 1·1, 1·3a,c | −1·1 | −1·4, 0·9a,b |
| Mean age (years) | 43·2 | 41·8, 44·7 | 44·0 | 40·5, 47·4 | 41·3 | 39·6, 42·9c | 48·9 | 46·8, 51·0b |
| Sex, female (%) | 60·7 | 57·2, 64·1 | 57·4 | 49·7, 64·7 | 60·6 | 56·0, 65·1 | 64·6 | 57·3, 71·3 |
| Race* (%) | ||||||||
| White | 38·7 | 34·7, 42·8 | 32·7 | 21·1, 46·8 | 38·7 | 34·1, 43·6 | 45·1 | 35·1, 55·5 |
| Brown | 42·0 | 38·0, 46·1 | 32·7 | 26·7, 49·1 | 44·5 | 39·5, 49·6 | 39·1 | 19·3, 49·6 |
| Black | 19·2 | 15·1, 24·2 | 30·1 | 16·0, 49·3 | 16·7 | 13·3, 20·8 | 15·8 | 11·0, 22·2 |
| Educational attainment (%) | ||||||||
| 0–4 years | 18·5 | 15·5, 21·9 | 26·5 | 19·4, 35·0c | 19·2 | 15·4, 23·3c | 7·8 | 4·4, 13·4a,b |
| 5–8 years | 23·8 | 21·0, 27·1 | 28·7 | 23·0, 35·2 | 21·3 | 17·6, 25·5 | 26·9 | 22·4, 32·0 |
| 9–11 years | 45·2 | 39·7, 50·1 | 37·2 | 28·4, 47·0 | 48·0 | 40·3, 55·8 | 44·8 | 37·2, 52·7 |
| >12 years | 12·4 | 10·0, 15·4 | 7·5 | 5·2, 10·9c | 11·6 | 8·5, 15·8 | 20·4 | 14·7, 27·6a |
| Monthly income ≤3 minimum wages† (%) | 69·9 | 61·5, 68·2 | 70·3 | 62·6, 77·0c | 68·15 | 63·4, 72·5c | 48·4 | 40·8, 56·1a,b |
| Mean length of residence (years)‡ | 18·4 | 17·3, 19·6 | 17·1 | 14·5, 19·7 | 18·4 | 16·9, 19·9 | 20·0 | 18·1, 21·9 |
| Practise physical activity§ (%) | 35·0 | 30·9, 30·8 | 30·6 | 22·3, 40·2 | 33·5 | 28·0, 39·6 | 44·6 | 38·7, 50·8 |
| Self-rated health (%) | ||||||||
| Good/very good | 64·1 | 59·6, 68·3 | 52·1 | 39·5, 64·4 | 66·5 | 61·8, 70·8 | 69·3 | 63·0, 74·9 |
| Fair | 28·6 | 25·3, 32·2 | 31·9 | 25·7, 38·7 | 28·8 | 24·3, 33·7 | 24·5 | 18·3, 31·8 |
| Poor/very poor | 7·3 | 4·9, 10·9 | 16·0 | 8·4, 28·3b | 4·8 | 2·9, 7·6a | 6·2 | 3·4, 11·1 |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2)‖ | 27·1 | 26·7, 27·6 | 26·8 | 26·4, 27·2 | 26·9 | 26·3, 27·5 | 28·1 | 27·1, 29·2 |
| BMI > 25 kg/m2 (%) | 37·8 | 34·5, 41·2 | 37·8 | 30·4, 45·9 | 36·6 | 32·6, 40·8 | 41·81 | 34·6, 49·3 |
| BMI > 30 kg/m2 (%) | 20·1 | 17·1, 23·5 | 18·4 | 12·65, 25·9 | 19·9 | 15·9, 24·6 | 22·6 | 17·2, 29·2 |
| Low perceived food environment (%) | 16·7 | 13·2, 20·9 | 27·5 | 20·0, 36·7c | 15·5 | 11·3, 21·0 | 8·8 | 5·0, 14·9a |
Residential segregation was measured for study-defined neighbourhoods using the Getis–Ord local statistic. Categories of segregation were defined as follows: high, 
; medium, 
; and low, 
. Low perceived food environments were considered when the answers to all questions about fruit and vegetable availability (variety, quality and price) were ‘no’. In order to identify any differences, the comparison of 95 % CI was used: ahigh-segregated neighbourhood; bmedium-segregated neighbourhood (integrated); clow-segregated neighbourhood. Values within a row with unlike superscript letters were statistically different.
Data includes twenty-three missing values.
Data includes thirty-two missing values.
Data includes ten missing values.
Data includes three missing values.
Data includes twelve missing values.