Table 4.
Child-reported health assets by socio-demographics and pubertal status.
| Child-Reported Health Asset | Overall | Female vs. Male | 6th–8th vs. 4th–5thgrade |
Lower Income (<$40,000) vs Higher Income ($40,000+) |
Low Maternal Education vs. College Degree |
Black vs. White | Puberty Complete vs. Not Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | Difference, % (p-value) | ||||||
| Physical comfort | 40.6 | −9.5 (<0.001) |
−4.9 (0.005) |
−10.8 (<0.001) |
−6.4 (<0.001) |
||
| Emotional comfort | 58.7 | −15.3 (<0.001) |
−7.0 (<0.001) |
−6.4 (0.007) |
−5.8 (<0.001) |
||
| Low stress reactions | 36.0 | −4.0 (0.013) |
−7.6 (<0.001) |
−6.2 (0.001) |
−6.7 (<0.001) |
||
| Physical activity | 55.1 | −19.8 (<0.001) |
−4.8 (0.007) |
−5.9 (0.009) |
|||
| Balanced nutrition | 12.1 | 2.2 (0.046) |
−4.9 (<0.001) |
2.1 (0.047) |
|||
| Vitality | 58.4 | −11.1 (<0.001) |
−6.2 (0.010) |
−4.9 (0.006) |
|||
| Active coping | 39.0 | 10.2 (<0.001) |
−4.6 (0.034) |
−6.0 (0.006) |
−3.8 (0.017) |
||
| Low aggression | 78.9 | 11.4 (<0.001) |
−5.9 (0.018) |
−5.7 (<0.001) |
−6.7 (<0.001) |
−16.0 (<0.001) |
−6.9 (<0.001) |
| Low Bully victim | 75.9 | −4.7 (0.002) |
−6.9 (<0.001) |
−4.4 (0.012) |
|||
| Peer connectedness | 67.1 | 7.4 (<0.001) |
−5.8 (<0.001) |
6.1 (<0.001) |
|||
| Family connectedness | 47.8 | −5.4 (0.003) |
−5.4 (<0.001) |
||||
| Life satisfaction | 75.6 | −7.3 (<0.001) |
−2.8 (0.043) |
||||
| Self worth | 65.9 | −5.6 (<0.001) |
−3.8 (0.025) |
8.0 (<0.001) |
−4.5 (0.003) |
||
| Body image | 57.5 | −14.5 (<0.001) |
−5.4 (<0.001) |
4.3 (0.048) |
−5.4 (<0.001) |
||
| Mean (p-value) | |||||||
| Total nos. health assets (range 0−14) | 7.7 | −0.5 (<0.001) |
−0.8 (<0.001) |
−0.5 (0.001) |
−0.4 (0.007) |
−0.3 (0.001) |
|
(1) Child-reported health assets were scored in the direction of good health. They were dichotomized at 4 and above to indicate presence of the asset.
(2) Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts for children nested within schools and an AR(1) correlation structure were used to estimate beta coefficients and p-values. The p-value estimates were comparable between mixed effects that used Gaussian and binomial link functions. The linear model is presented to provide estimates of percentage change.
(3) Positive values indicate that the first group had a higher level of the health asset and vice versa.