Table 4.
Explanatory variables used for this study
| Level | Health-determining factor (explained variance) | Original variables (Pearson correlation coefficients) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neighbourhood Physical environment | Natural environment (4.3%) | ○ Larger amounts of vegetation in 100 m around the households (0.8) | |
| ○ Longer distances to the nearest major street (0.7) | |||
| ○ Lesser amounts of surface water in 100 m around the households (-0.6) | |||
| Flood non- affectedness (4.1%) | ○ Whether the area was regarded as flood non-affected (0.7) | ||
| ○ Whether the area was regarded as having a proper drainage system (0.7) | |||
| ○ Longer distances to the nearest river (0.5) | |||
| Household | Physical environment | Housing quality (6.3%) | ○ Better-quality fuel for cooking (0.9) |
| ○ Owning a gas burner (0.8) | |||
| ○ Higher monthly rent for the house (0.6) | |||
| ○ Better construction materials (0.5) | |||
| Access to basic services (4.7%) | ○ Owning an electric fan (0.6) | ||
| ○ Short distance to the nearest river (0.5) | |||
| ○ Better water supply (0.5) | |||
| ○ Large distance to the nearest park area | |||
| (-0.8) | |||
| Sanitation (3.6%) | ○ Better toilet facility (0.7) | ||
| ○ Better garbage disposal (0.6) | |||
| Housing sufficiency (3.6%) | ○ Whether the room was used for other purposes aside from living (0.7) | ||
| ○ Sufficient light in the house (0.6) | |||
| ○ Whether the room was regarded as sufficient for one's family (0.5) | |||
| Housing durability (3.5%) | ○ Whether the house was considered to be permanent (0.8) | ||
| ○ Household had a refrigerator (0.7) | |||
| Economic environment | Household wealth (4.3%) | ○ Owning a Tape/CD/VCD (0.7) | |
| ○ Owning a radio (0.6) | |||
| ○ Owning a TV (0.6) | |||
| ○ Higher number of rooms (0.5) | |||
| Job satisfaction (4%) | ○ Not thinking that the job is harmful to one's health (0.8) | ||
| ○ Liking one's job (0.7) | |||
| ○ Fewer working hours per day (-0.4) | |||
| Income generation (3.7%) | ○ A large number of family members earning income (0.7) | ||
| ○ Having a job contract (0.4) | |||
| ○ Higher monthly family income (0.7) | |||
| ○ Working more hours a day (0.2) | |||
| Social environment | Population density (5.2%) | ○ Higher number of family members (0.8) | |
| ○ Higher numbers of persons sharing the same meals (0.7) | |||
| ○ Higher number of persons living in the same room (0.7) | |||
| Individual | Smoking behavior (4.8%) | ○ Not smoking cigarettes (0.8) | |
| ○ Not smoking inside the room (0.8) | |||
| ○ Small number of family members who smoke (-0.7) | |||
| Environmental health knowledge (3.9%) | ○ Thinking that polluted, stagnant water and garbage near one's house could spread disease and increase the risk of poor health (0.8) | ||
| ○ And that air pollution is bad for one's health(0.6) | |||
| Personal health knowledge (3.4%) | ○ Thinking that smoking tobacco is bad for one's health (0.7) | ||
| ○ And that physical exercise can be good for one's health (0.7) | |||
| Community | Original variables were used | ||
| member | |||
| Using bed net | |||
| Education | |||
| Married | |||
| Migrant | |||
| Age | |||
| Gender | |||
| Disease | |||
Mental health-determining factors (HDF) were used as explanatory variables. They were prior extracted through factor analysis in SPSS 17. In the table, we report the name of each HDF (i.e. the factors) and in brackets the explained variance. The original variables which were found to be correlated with these HDF are also displayed, with Pearson correlation coefficients in brackets.