Table 6.
Prevalence estimates and odds ratios for fair/poor self-rated general health by selected demographic, socioeconomic and environmental factors
| Full sample (N) Prevalence % c | Analytic sample (N = 1687) Prevalence % | Analytic sample (N = 1687) Fully adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic factors | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| †Male | 21.8 (1723) | 20.6 (899) | 1.00 | - |
| Female | 26.8 (1315)** | 28.6 (788)*** | 1.67*** | [1.32,2.12] |
| Ethnic group | ||||
| †White: UK | 19 (590) | 20.2 (351) | 1.00 | - |
| White: Mixed | 25.5 (373)* | 25.4 (185) | 1.41 | [0.90,2.20] |
| Asian: Indian | 21.3 (108) | 21.1 (71) | 1.18 | [0.61,2.27] |
| Asian: Pakistani | 25.8 (128) | 26.3 (76) | 1.37 | [0.75,2.51] |
| Asian: Bangladeshi | 30.5 (501)** | 29.9 (334)** | 1.65* | [1.10,2.48] |
| Black: Caribbean | 22.2 (144) | 22.4 (67) | 1.29 | [0.67,2.51] |
| Black: African | 24.5 (355)* | 27.4 (175)* | 1.81* | [1.15,2.86] |
| Other | 23.2 (810)* | 22 (428) | 1.33 | [0.91,1.93] |
| Nativity | ||||
| †UK Born | 25 (2372) | 25.4 (1372) | 1.00 | - |
| Born overseas | 19.5 (614)** | 19.7 (315)* | 0.64** | [0.46,0.90] |
| Borough | ||||
| †Newham | 25.8 (875) | 28.8 (420) | 1.00 | - |
| Tower Hamlets | 27.4 (793) | 27.9 (476) | 0.87 | [0.62,1.21] |
| Barking & Dagenham | 21.5 (657)* | 21 (415)** | 0.64* | [0.45,0.91] |
| Hackney | 20.2 (713)** | 18.4 (376)*** | 0.53** | [0.36,0.77] |
| Socioeconomic factors | ||||
| Parental economic activity | ||||
| †Both unemployed | 28.8 (278) | 29 (186) | 1.00 | - |
| One parent employed | 25 (929) | 24.7 (575) | 0.81 | [0.53,1.25] |
| Both parents employed | 20.9 (1036)** | 21.5 (671)* | 0.82 | [0.51,1.31] |
| Lone parent employed | 21.6 (227) | 22.9 (140) | 0.85 | [0.47,1.52] |
| Lone parent unemployed | 28.1 (171) | 30 (100) | 1.06 | [0.60,1.87] |
| Doesn’t live with parent | 41.4 (29) | 53.3 (15) | 3.80 | [1.24,11.66] |
| Family affluence a | ||||
| †Low | 25.6 (308) | 26.3 (179) | 1.00 | - |
| Moderate | 24.7 (1548) | 25.5 (909) | 1.05 | [0.71,1.54] |
| High | 22.6 (1048) | 21.9 (599) | 0.99 | [0.65,1.50] |
| Free school meals | ||||
| †No meals | 22.2 (1783) | 22.7 (1103) | 1.00 | - |
| Receives free meals | 26.6 (1197)** | 27.4 (584)* | 1.01 | [0.75,1.37] |
| Environmental Factors | ||||
| Neighbourhood safety b | ||||
| †Safe | 18.6 (625) | 18.7 (460) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 24.5 (758)** | 24.6 (568)* | 1.31 | [0.95,1.80] |
| Not safe | 27.7 (949)*** | 27.9 (659)*** | 1.45* | [1.04,2.01] |
| Neighbourhood aesthetics b | ||||
| †Pleasant | 20.1 (551) | 20.5 (435) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 20.9 (681) | 20.7 (513) | 1.01 | [0.73,1.41] |
| Unpleasant | 28 (1056)*** | 29.1 (739)** | 1.45* | [1.06,1.99] |
| Neighbourhood walk-cycleability b | ||||
| †Easy to walk/cycle | 19.8 (475) | 20.1 (364) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 24.9 (618)* | 25.1 (486) | 1.32 | [0.94,1.86] |
| Not easy to walk/cycle | 25.7 (1076)* | 25.7 (837)* | 1.51* | [1.10,2.07] |
| Proximity to businesses & services b | ||||
| †Close by | 21 (629) | 20.2 (476) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 23 (816) | 23.4 (582) | 1.13 | [0.83,1.53] |
| Far away | 27.9 (896)** | 28.3 (629)** | 1.51** | [1.12,2.04] |
| Likelihood ratio test v logistic regression | p = 0.47 | |||
†Reference category.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
a0 to 2 items = low score; 3 to 5 items = moderate score; 6 to 9 items = high score.
bIndividual items were summed were summed for each scale and split into tertiles owing to the skewed distribution.
cFull sample N varies by each outcome due to missing data.
dAdjusted for all demographic, socioeconomic and environmental indicators accounting for clustering within schools.