Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun 5;26(9):1815–1827. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023000952

Table 4.

The associations between childhood obesity (%) and the main variables of interest (distance, income, density and rurality) in a sample of 6771 MSOA in England

i Model A % ii Model B % iii Model C % iv Model D % v Model E % vi Model F %
Dependent variable: % Childhood obesity
Log(Distance) −0·597*** 0·072 −0·224*** 0·063 −0·487*** 0·094 −0·534*** 0·105 0·340*** 0·080 0·405*** 0·099
Income§ −0·000*** 0·000 −0·000*** 0·000 −0·000*** 0·000
Population Density|| 0·004* 0·002 0·019*** 0·002 0·019*** 0·002
Rural MSOA −0·183 0·199 −0·190 0·170
Constant 22·526*** 0·071 33·873*** 0·218 22·308*** 0·138 22·523*** 0·071 33·162*** 0·230 33·160*** 0·230
Observations 6771 6771 6771 6771 6771 6771
Adjusted R 2 0·010 0·315 0·010 0·010 0·328 0·328

MSOA = Middle Super Output Area.

Commentary. Adding density in model E resulted in coefficient flipping for supermarket distance, which then showed a positive association with overweight in line with previous research; all the covariates are significant.

Robust standard errors in parenthesis.

*

P < 0·10,

**P < 0·05,

***

P < 0·01.

Proportion of overweight children (incl. obese), 2013–16 (averaged) and collapsed to MSOA level.

Road distance from postcode centroid to the nearest supermarket, the variable was log-transformed.

§

Total annual household income.

||

Number of persons per hectare.

Urban–rural classification (0-urban, 1-rural).