Table 3.
Significance of interactions between environmental variables, and gender and neighborhood socioeconomic status by binary logistic model
| Overweight | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interaction terms with gender and neighborhood SES | ||||
| Gender | Neighborhood SES | |||
| OR† | (95% C.I) | OR† | (95% C.I) | |
| Residential density (low) | 1.71 | (1.02- 2.86)* | 1.07 | (0.37- 3.12) |
| Access to commercial places (Disagree) | 1.42 | (0.74- 2.74) | 1.25 | (0.61- 2.58) |
| Access to non-residential places (Disagree) | 1.35 | (0.59- 3.04) | 0.67 | (0.28- 1.57) |
| Access to public transport (Disagree) | 0.95 | (0.49- 1.85) | 0.72 | (0.35- 1.51) |
| Presence of recreational centers (Disagree) | 0.67 | (0.33- 1.37) | 1.98 | (0.86- 4.55) |
| Presence of pedestrian pathways (Disagree) | 0.89 | (0.46- 1.75) | 1.98 | (0.92- 4.05) |
| Maintenance of pathways (Poor) | 3.08 | (1.26- 7.49)* | 1.72 | (0.54- 5.49) |
| Presence of beautiful things (Disagree) | 1.81 | (1.05- 3.13)* | 1.29 | (1.02- 2.86)* |
| Absence of unattended animals (Disagree) | 1.23 | (0.68- 2.25) | 0.89 | (0.49- 1.65) |
| Absence of garbages and foul odors (Disagree) | 0.92 | (0.49- 1.71) | 2.12 | (0.83- 5.39) |
| Seeing people active (Disagree) | 0.74 | (0.34- 1.58) | 0.54 | (0.19- 1.46) |
| Connectivity of street (Poor) | 1.79 | (0.88- 3.65) | 0.78 | (0.42- 1.83) |
| Traffic safety for bicycling (Not safe) | 1.13 | (0.51- 2.55) | 0.99 | (0.45- 2.20) |
| Traffic safety for walking (Not safe) | 2.19 | (1.22- 3.93)* | 1.66 | (0.87- 2.71) |
| Crime Safety during the day (Not safe) | 1.08 | 0.55- 2.12) | 0.66 | (0.24- 1.83) |
| Crime safety at night (Not safe) | 1.18 | (0.69- 2.04) | 2.35 | (1.66- 4.24)* |
OR_ odds ratio' *_ statistically significant (p < 0.05)
†_ Adjusted for age, neighborhood location, marital status, ethnic group, employment status, and education
†_ Adjusted for age, gender, marital status, ethnic group, employment status, and education