Skip to main content
. 2007 Sep;61(9):771–777. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.048462

Table 1 Comparison of residents in houses improved as an early intervention compared with those in houses deferred for improvement at start of study.

Intervention Control
(a) Houses
House type n = 50 (%) n = 69 (%)
Semi‐detached 28 (56) 33 (48)
Terrace 14 (28) 22 (32)
End terrace 8 (16) 14 (20)
Occupancy n = 48 (%) n = 63 (%)
Not overcrowded (<1 person/room) 33 (69) 49 (78)
Overcrowded (1–1.5 person/room) 14 (29) 13 (21)
Severe overcrowding (1.5+ person/room) 1 (2) 1(2)
Heating n = 48 (%) n = 63 (%)
Central heating downstairs 30 (63) 39 (62)
Central heating upstairs 5 (10) 5 (8)
Open fire downstairs 8 (17) 5 (8)
Gas fire downstairs 35 (73) 48 (76)
Temperature n = 48 (%) n = 65 (%)
Living room below 21°C 43 (90) 58 (89)
Bedroom below 18°C 38 (79) 49 (75)
Indoor air pollutant exposure n = 49 (%) n = 63 (%)
With pet 34 (71) 43 (68)
With smoker 37 (77) 42 (67)
Gas cooking 33 (67) 40 (64)
(b) Residents
Sex n = 209 (%) n = 272 (%)
Male 104 (50) 133 (49)
Female 105 (50) 139 (51)
Age (years) n = 207 (%) n = 269 (%)
0–4 30 (15) 26 (10)
5–17 94 (45) 109 (42)
18–44 65 (31) 80 (31)
45–64 13 (6) 35 (13)
65+ 5 (2) 12 (5)
Employment n = 82 (%) n = 120 (%)
Unemployed 41 (50) 52 (43)
Smoking n = 109 (%) n = 136 (%)
Yes 47 (43) 55 (40)
Suffer from asthma n = 207 (%) n = 263 (%)
Yes 58 (28) 66 (25)