Skip to main content
. 2008 Sep;67(6):900–914. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.029

Table 1.

Per Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintile: number of each resource; percentage of total resources; mean number per 1000 residents; mean distance to nearest; % data zones with at least one

SIMD quintile Number Percentage of total resources Mean N per 1000 residents Mean distance (metres) to nearest resource % DZs with at least one
A. Education
LEA nurseries 1 – Most affluent 4 5.8 0.03 1292 2.9
2 14 20.3 0.12 1079 10.1
3 – Middling 12 17.4 0.10 1208 8.6
4 15 21.7 0.13 1113 10.8
5 – Most deprived 24 34.8 0.23 959 17.4
Total 69 100.0 0.12 1131 9.9
ANOVA F = 5.09, p < 0.001 F = 5.11, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 16.10, p < 0.001 F = 12.68, p < 0.001



Private nurseries 1 – Most affluent 41 20.1 0.33 672 23.7
2 35 17.2 0.30 709 23.0
3 – Middling 39 19.1 0.31 745 19.4
4 43 21.1 0.40 649 25.9
5 – Most deprived 46 22.5 0.45 652 29.0
Total 204 100.0 0.36 685 24.2
ANOVA F = 1.09, p = 0.362 F = 1.2, p = 0.345
Linearity F = 3.07, p = 0.080 F = −0.67, p = 0.080



LEA primary schools 1 – Most affluent 18 9.4 0.16 795 11.5
2 34 17.7 0.28 624 23.0
3 – Middling 42 21.9 0.35 600 26.6
4 45 23.4 0.41 556 30.2
5 – Most deprived 53 27.6 0.48 578 32.6
Total 192 100.0 0.34 631 24.8
ANOVA F = 5.51, p < 0.001 F = 8.23, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 21.52, p < 0.001 F = 22.84, p < 0.001



LEA secondary schools 1 – Most affluent 9 30.0 0.07 1228 6.5
2 5 16.7 0.04 1493 3.6
3 – Middling 5 16.7 0.04 1459 3.6
4 8 26.7 0.08 1585 5.8
5 – Most deprived 3 10.0 0.02 1662 2.2
Total 30 100.0 0.05 1485 4.3
ANOVA F = 1.37, p = 0.242 F = 6.82, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 1.02, p = 0.313 F = 23.2, p < 0.001



Private schools 1 – Most affluent 4 33.3 0.03 2270 2.9
2 4 33.3 0.03 2372 2.9
3 – Middling 3 25.0 0.03 2846 1.4
4 1 8.3 0.01 3291 0.7
5 – Most deprived 0 0.0 0.00 3390 0.0
Total 12 100.0 0.02 2833 1.6
ANOVA F = 1.03, p = 0.389 F = 16.14, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 3.50, p = 0.062 F = 61.38, p < 0.001



B. Emergency services
Fire stations 1 – Most affluent 0 0.0 0.00 2437 0.0
2 4 30.8 0.04 2278 2.9
3 – Middling 2 15.4 0.02 2173 1.4
4 2 15.4 0.02 2180 1.4
5 – Most deprived 5 38.5 0.04 2091 2.9
Total 13 100.0 0.02 2232 1.7
ANOVA F = 1.06, p = 0.374 F = 25, p = 0.062
Linearity F = 1.62, p = 0.204 F = 8.01, p = 0.005



Police stations 1 – Most affluent 1 4.5 0.01 1832 0.7
2 5 22.7 0.05 1585 3.6
3 – Middling 6 27.3 0.04 1621 4.3
4 4 18.2 0.04 1621 2.9
5 – Most deprived 6 27.3 0.05 1518 4.3
Total 22 100.0 0.04 1636 3.2
ANOVA F = 0.91, p = 0.458 F = 2.28, p = 0.024
Linearity F = 1.67, p = 0.198 F = 7.14, p = 0.008



C. Health services
GP surgeries 1 – Most affluent 17 16.2 0.15 1013 10.8
2 18 17.1 0.15 825 11.5
3 – Middling 34 32.4 0.27 814 19.4
4 18 17.1 0.17 853 12.2
5 – Most deprived 18 17.1 0.17 913 12.3
Total 105 100.0 0.18 884 13.3
ANOVA F = 1.51, p = 0.197 F = 2.86, p = 0.023
Linearity F = 0.14, p = 0.713 F = 1.26, p = 0.262



Dental practices 1 – Most affluent 25 18.7 0.20 872 13.7
2 38 28.4 0.30 831 21.6
3 – Middling 28 20.9 0.25 896 15.8
4 18 13.4 0.16 927 11.5
5 – Most deprived 25 18.7 0.22 929 14.5
Total 134 100.0 0.23 891 15.4
ANOVA F = 1.16, p = 0.328 F = 0.77, p = 0.547
Linearity F = 0.56, p = 0.456 F = 1.99, p = 0.159



Pharmacies 1 – Most affluent 19 12.1 0.17 806 12.2
2 32 20.4 0.28 706 20.9
3 – Middling 35 22.3 0.30 689 20.1
4 27 17.2 0.24 727 15.8
5 – Most deprived 44 28.0 0.40 716 23.9
Total 157 100.0 0.28 729 18.6
ANOVA F = 2.43, p = 0.046 F = 1.35, p = 0.252
Linearity F = 6.12, p = 0.014 F = 1.63, p = 0.203



Ophthalmic practices 1 – Most affluent 14 13.7 0.12 1156 9.4
2 32 31.4 0.27 1036 13.7
3 – Middling 18 17.6 0.16 1136 11.5
4 10 9.8 0.09 1184 5.0
5 – Most deprived 28 27.5 0.23 1150 11.6
Total 102 100.0 0.17 1132 10.2
ANOVA F = 1.79, p = 0.130 F = 0.81, p = 0.521
Linearity F = 0.03, p = 0.872 F = 0.47, p = 0.494



D. Means of exchange
Banks 1 – Most affluent 20 18.2 0.18 1085 10.8
2 40 36.4 0.32 1080 7.9
3 – Middling 23 20.9 0.20 1223 10.1
4 7 6.4 0.06 1345 4.3
5 – Most deprived 20 18.2 0.17 1340 8.0
Total 110 100.0 0.18 1214 8.2
ANOVA F = 0.91, p = 0.457 F = 3.62, p = 0.006
Linearity F = 0.87, p = 0.351 F = 12.83, p < 0.001



Building societies 1 – Most affluent 2 16.7 0.02 3318 1.4
2 7 58.3 0.06 3204 0.7
3 – Middling 2 16.7 0.01 3815 0.7
4 0 0.0 0.00 4240 0.0
5 – Most deprived 1 8.3 0.01 4496 0.7
Total 12 100.0 0.02 3814 0.7
ANOVA F = 0.680, p = 0.606 F = 8.51, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 0.791, p = 0.374 F = 30.93, p < 0.001



Credit unions 1 – Most affluent 0 0.0 0.00 2112 0.0
2 4 11.4 0.03 2121 2.9
3 – Middling 9 25.7 0.07 1565 6.5
4 10 28.6 0.09 1471 7.2
5 – Most deprived 12 34.3 0.10 1290 8.0
Total 35 100.0 0.06 1712 4.9
ANOVA F = 3.74, p = 0.005 F = 21.59, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 14.51, p < 0.001 F = 77.67, p < 0.001



Pawn brokers/cheque cashers 1 – Most affluent 1 4.0 0.01 2414 0.7
2 10 40.0 0.08 2286 2.9
3 – Middling 4 16.0 0.04 2339 2.9
4 3 12.0 0.03 2535 1.4
5 – Most deprived 7 28.0 0.06 2491 4.3
Total 25 100.0 0.04 2413 2.4
ANOVA F = 0.79, p = 0.530 F = 0.63, p = 0.639
Linearity F = 0.16, p = 0.689 F = 0.97, p = 0.326



Post offices 1 – Most affluent 13 12.7 0.11 791 9.4
2 16 15.7 0.13 786 11.5
3 – Middling 22 21.6 0.20 705 15.1
4 19 18.6 0.16 755 13.7
5 – Most deprived 32 31.4 0.30 761 21.7
Total 102 100.0 0.18 760 14.3
ANOVA F = 3.86, p = 0.004 F = 0.87, p = 0.481
Linearity F = 11.63, p = 0.001 F = 0.62, p = 0.430



ATMs 1 – Most affluent 96 15.0 0.76 532.0 36.7
2 215 33.5 1.74 481.1 45.3
3 – Middling 122 19.0 1.00 561.4 37.4
4 79 12.3 0.70 550.2 37.4
5 – Most deprived 129 20.1 1.19 538.9 31.2
Total 641 100.0 1.08 532.7 37.6
ANOVA F = 1.11, p = 0.348 F = 0.939, p = 0.440
Linearity F = 0.024, p = 0.877 F = 0.674, p = 0.412



E. Food retail
Supermarkets 1 – Most affluent 11 24.4 0.09 1166 7.9
2 6 13.3 0.05 1205 2.2
3 – Middling 12 26.7 0.11 1280 7.9
4 5 11.1 0.05 1304 3.6
5 – Most deprived 11 24.4 0.11 1369 7.2
Total 45 100.0 0.08 1265 5.8
ANOVA F = 0.87, p = 0.481 F = 2.26, p = 0.061
Linearity F = 0.04, p = 0.850 F = 8.89, p = 0.003



Fast food chains 1 – Most affluent 9 21.4 0.07 1800 4.3
2 9 21.4 0.07 1659 2.2
3 – Middling 7 16.7 0.06 1715 4.3
4 4 9.5 0.04 1887 2.2
5 – Most deprived 13 31.0 0.11 1745 5.1
Total 42 100.0 0.07 1761 3.6
ANOVA F = 0.452, p = 0.771 F = 1.22, p = 0.303
Linearity F = 0.158, p = 0.691 F = 0.22, p = 0.636



Cafes 1 – Most affluent 52 16.5 0.41 917.9 21.6
2 101 32.1 0.86 722.9 31.7
3 – Middling 65 20.6 0.53 830.0 23.0
4 33 10.5 0.31 909.8 15.8
5 – Most deprived 64 20.3 0.55 1001.7 21.7
Total 315 100.0 0.53 876.3 22.8
ANOVA F = 1.51, p = 0.197 F = 3.19, p < 0.05
Linearity F = 0.286, p = 0.593 F = 3.60, p = 0.058



F. Culture and entertainment
Bingo halls 1 – Most affluent 1 7.7 0.01 2887 0.7
2 1 7.7 0.01 2699 0.7
3 – Middling 3 23.1 0.02 2553 2.2
4 3 23.1 0.03 2337 2.2
5 – Most deprived 5 38.5 0.04 2223 3.6
Total 13 100.0 0.02 2540 1.9
ANOVA F = 1.12, p = 0.345 F = 5.55, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 4.26, p = 0.040 F = 22.06, p < 0.001



Public libraries 1 – Most affluent 4 11.1 0.05 1384 2.2
2 5 13.9 0.04 1232 3.6
3 – Middling 12 33.3 0.11 1174 8.6
4 7 19.4 0.06 1191 5.0
5 – Most deprived 8 22.2 0.07 1193 5.8
Total 36 100.0 0.07 1235 5.0
ANOVA F = 1.01, p = 0.402 F = 2.20, p = 0.068
Linearity F = 0.62, p = 0.431 F = 5.33, p = 0.021



Public museums/art galleries 1 – Most affluent 0 0.0 0.00 3318 0.0
2 7 43.8 0.06 3162 2.9
3 – Middling 3 18.8 0.02 3706 2.2
4 5 31.3 0.04 3948 2.2
5 – Most deprived 1 6.3 0.01 4132 0.7
Total 16 100.0 0.03 3652 1.6
ANOVA F = 1.61, p = 0.169 F = 4.99, p = 0.001
Linearity F = 0.00, p = 0.973 F = 17.30, p < 0.001



G. Transport
Railway stations 1 – Most affluent 14 24.1 0.11 1264 9.4
2 17 29.3 0.14 1069 10.8
3 – Middling 14 24.1 0.11 1195 9.4
4 6 10.3 0.05 1421 4.3
5 – Most deprived 7 12.1 0.06 1561 4.3
Total 58 100.0 0.09 1302 7.6
ANOVA F = 1.63, p = 0.165 F = 8.39, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 4.34, p = 0.038 F = 20.16, p < 0.001



Subway stations 1 – Most affluent 2 13.3 0.01 3986 1.4
2 5 33.3 0.05 3597 3.6
3 – Middling 4 26.7 0.03 3891 2.2
4 1 6.7 0.01 4341 0.7
5 – Most deprived 3 20.0 0.02 4648 2.2
Total 15 100.0 0.02 4092 2.0
ANOVA F = 1.19, p = 0.312 F = 3.98, p = 0.003
Linearity F = 0.25, p = 0.619 F = 10.17, p = 0.001



Bus stops 1 – Most affluent 482 14.5 3.89 306 82.0
2 640 19.2 5.57 244 88.5
3 – Middling 705 21.2 5.93 215 92.8
4 665 20.0 5.97 191 92.1
5 – Most deprived 833 25.1 7.53 234 96.4
Total 3325 100.0 5.78 238 90.3
ANOVA F = 6.0, p < 0.001 F = 7.1, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 20.9, p < 0.001 F = 14.9, p < 0.001



H. Physical activity and sport
Public swimming pools 1 – Most affluent 1 8.3 0.00 2675 0.7
2 1 8.3 0.01 2387 0.7
3 – Middling 2 16.7 0.02 2101 1.4
4 5 41.6 0.05 1978 3.6
5 – Most deprived 3 25.0 0.02 1899 2.2
Total 12 100.0 0.02 2208 1.7
ANOVA F = 1.26, p = 0.284 F = 13.5, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 2.21, p = 0.137 F = 50.7, p < 0.001



Private swimming pools 1 – Most affluent 3 16.7 0.03 3372 2.2
2 6 33.3 0.05 3353 2.9
3 – Middling 3 16.7 0.03 3339 1.4
4 0 0.0 0.00 3905 0.0
5 – Most deprived 6 33.3 0.04 3681 1.4
Total 18 100.0 0.03 3530 1.6
ANOVA F = 0.65, p = 0.627 F = 2.82, p = 0.024
Linearity F = 0.13, p = 0.724 F = 6.04, p = 0.014



Public sports centres 1 – Most affluent 2 6.9 0.01 1877 1.4
2 1 3.4 0.01 1706 0.7
3 – Middling 8 27.6 0.07 1539 5.8
4 10 34.5 0.09 1525 7.2
5 – Most deprived 8 27.6 0.07 1532 5.1
Total 29 100.0 0.05 1636 4.0
ANOVA F = 2.64, p = 0.033 F = 4.57, p = 0.001
Linearity F = 7.32, p = 0.007 F = 14.52, p < 0.001



Private health clubs 1 – Most affluent 3 13.0 0.03 2517 2.2
2 9 39.1 0.07 2576 4.3
3 – Middling 5 21.7 0.04 2742 3.6
4 1 4.3 0.01 3196 0.7
5 – Most deprived 5 21.7 0.04 2915 2.9
Total 23 100.0 0.04 2789 2.7
ANOVA F = 1.07, p = 0.369 F = 3.35, p = 0.010
Linearity F = 0.54, p = 0.462 F = 8.87, p = 0.003



Tennis courts 1 – Most affluent 11 57.9 0.08 1938 7.9
2 5 26.3 0.04 2152 3.6
3 – Middling 2 10.5 0.01 2847 1.4
4 1 5.3 0.01 3178 0.7
5 – Most deprived 0 0.0 0.00 3230 0.0
Total 19 100.0 0.03 2668 2.7
ANOVA F = 4.52, p = 0.001 F = 19.97, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 15.72, p < 0.001 F = 73.98, p < 0.001



Bowling clubs 1 – Most affluent 11 22.4 0.08 1125 7.9
2 16 32.7 0.14 1096 10.1
3 – Middling 14 28.6 0.11 1293 9.4
4 5 10.2 0.05 1418 3.6
5 – Most deprived 3 6.1 0.03 1678 2.2
Total 49 100.0 0.08 1322 6.6
ANOVA F = 2.81, p = 0.025 F = 13.28, p < 0.001
Linearity F = 5.19, p = 0.023 F = 47.76, p < 0.001



Golf courses 1 – Most affluent 4 40.0 0.04 2830 2.9
2 0 0.0 0.00 2849 0.0
3 – Middling 2 20.0 0.02 2659 1.4
4 3 30.0 0.02 2727 1.4
5 – Most deprived 1 10.0 0.01 3082 0.7
Total 10 100.0 0.02 2829 1.3
ANOVA F = 1.11, p = 0.350 F = 2.32, p = 0.056
Linearity F = 0.69, p = 0.405 F = 1.30, p = 0.255



Public play areas 1 – Most affluent 72 12.6 0.67 628 21.6
2 98 17.2 0.83 563 26.6
3 – Middling 141 24.7 1.10 503 36.7
4 112 19.6 0.97 487 44.6
5 – Most deprived 148 25.9 1.37 451 49.3
Total 571 100.0 0.99 527 35.7
ANOVA F = 2.73, p = 0.028 F = 5.03, p = 0.001
Linearity F = 9.05, p = 0.003 F = 19.09, p < 0.001