Table 3.

Effect measure modification between neighborhood physical disorder and childhood maltreatment in predicting Wave 2 binge drinking and maximum number of drinks in the past 30 days among those with no binge drinking at baseline in a prospective community sample of individuals in Detroit, Michigan (N=1,013)

	Model 1: Unadjusted	Model 2: Adjusted for demographics+	Model 3: Adjusted for demographics and other neighborhood characteristics+
	Beta, SE, p-value	Beta, SE, p-value	Beta, SE, p-value
Binge drinking at Wave 2
Neighborhood physical disorder*	−1.33 (SE=0.60), p=0.03	−1.33 (SE=0.60), p=0.03	−1.21 (SE=0.55), p=0.03
Childhood maltreatment**	0.06 (SE=0.06), p=0.29	0.06 (SE=0.06), p=0.29	0.05 (SE=0.06), p=0.43
Interaction between neighborhood disorder  and childhood maltreatment	0.16 (SE=0.07), p=0.02	0.16 (SE=0.07), p=0.02	0.15 (SE=0.07), p=0.04
Maximum number of drinks at Wave 2
Neighborhood physical disorder*	−0.29 (SE=0.12), p=0.01	−0.71 (SE=0.19), p<0.001	−0.90 (SE=0.34), p<0.01
Childhood maltreatment	0.01 (SE=0.01), p=0.25	−0.01 (SE=0.01), p=0.21	−0.02 (SE=0.01), p=0.10
Interaction between neighborhood disorder  and childhood maltreatment	0.03 (SE=0.02), p=0.11	0.05 (SE=0.02), p=0.004	0.05 (SE=0.02), p=0.01

^*Higher score is less disordered. Continuous factor score representing three items: presence of buildings with broken windows, boarded up windows, or boarded up doors; presence of buildings with outside damage that can only be corrected by major repairs such as siding, shingles, boards, brick, concrete, and stucco; and presence of entirely vacant buildings.

^**Continuous variable with range 0 to 22

⁺Model 2 was adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education, employment status, and marital status. Model three was adjusted for aforementioned variables and additionally controlled for the percent in the census tract that were living below the poverty line, the median house value of the census tract, and the median income of the census tract.