Table 7.
Prevalence estimates and odds ratios for longstanding illness by selected demographic, socioeconomic and environmental factors
| Full sample (N) Prevalence c | Analytic sample (N = 1689) Prevalence % | Analytic sample (N = 1689) Fully adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic factors | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| †Male | 42.1 (1694) | 40.9 (898) | 1.00 | - |
| Female | 42.6 (1310) | 41 (791) | 1.02 | [0.84,1.25] |
| Ethnic group | ||||
| †White: UK | 42.8 (584) | 38.6 (352) | 1.00 | - |
| White: Mixed | 48.4 (364) | 50.5 (184)* | 1.75** | [1.20,2.54] |
| Asian: Indian | 40.2 (107) | 36.6 (71) | 1.03 | [0.59,1.79] |
| Asian: Pakistani | 48 (127) | 42.1 (76) | 1.18 | [0.70,2.01] |
| Asian: Bangladeshi | 39.9 (499) | 38.3 (334) | 1.01 | [0.72,1.44] |
| Black: Caribbean | 51.1 (139) | 52.2 (67)* | 1.87* | [1.09,3.22] |
| Black: African | 31.5 (349)* | 32.8 (174) | 0.87 | [0.58,1.31] |
| Other | 43 (805) | 42.7 (431) | 1.36* | [1.00,1.86] |
| Nativity | ||||
| †UK Born | 43.2 (2342) | 42.1 (1372) | 1.00 | - |
| Born overseas | 38 (610)* | 36 (317)* | 0.77 | [0.58,1.02] |
| Borough | ||||
| †Newham | 42.3 (863) | 41.3 (421) | 1.00 | - |
| Tower Hamlets | 43.1 (789) | 41.7 (477) | 1.02 | [0.76,1.37] |
| Barking & Dagenham | 41.9 (642) | 40.8 (414) | 0.98 | [0.73,1.33] |
| Hackney | 42 (710) | 39.5 (377) | 0.81 | [0.59,1.11] |
| Socioeconomic factors | ||||
| Parental economic activity | ||||
| †Both unemployed | 44.4 (277) | 39.8 (186) | 1.00 | - |
| One parent employed | 41.8 (922) | 40.1 (574) | 0.99 | [0.67,1.45] |
| Both parents employed | 41.3 (1024) | 41.3 (671) | 1.00 | [0.65,1.53] |
| Lone parent employed | 41.9 (229) | 40.6 (143) | 0.95 | [0.58,1.58] |
| Lone parent unemployed | 46.2 (171) | 46 (100) | 1.21 | [0.72,2.01] |
| Doesn’t live with parent | 41.4 (29) | 40 (15) | 0.92 | [0.0,2.81] |
| Family affluence a | ||||
| †Low | 39.3 (303) | 39.3 (178) | 1.00 | - |
| Moderate | 43.2 (1534) | 42.2 (912) | 1.15 | [0.82,1.61] |
| High | 41 (1034) | 39.4 (599) | 0.99 | [0.69,1.42] |
| Free school meals | ||||
| †No meals | 41.5 (1755) | 41.1 (1101) | 1.00 | - |
| Receives free meals | 43.2 (1188) | 40.6 (588) | 0.89 | [0.68,1.16] |
| Environmental factors | ||||
| Neighbourhood safety b | ||||
| †Safe | 38.2 (621) | 38 (460) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 39.2 (755) | 36.7 (570) | 0.94 | [0.72,1.22] |
| Not safe | 47.3 (942)* | 46.6 (659)** | 1.35* | [1.03,1.78] |
| Neighbourhood aesthetics b | ||||
| †Pleasant | 37.5 (550) | 36.6 (437) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 41.9 (677) | 40.5 (511) | 1.16 | [0.89,1.53] |
| Unpleasant | 44.2 (1051)** | 43.7 (741)* | 1.17 | [0.89,1.54] |
| Neighbourhood walk-cycleability b | ||||
| †Easy to walk/cycle | 43 (474) | 43.1 (364) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 40.1 (614) | 39.2 (485) | 0.81 | [0.61,1.07] |
| Not easy to walk/cycle | 41.1 (1074) | 41 (840) | 0.95 | [0.74,1.23] |
| Proximity to businesses & services b | ||||
| †Close by | 41.9 (626) | 39.9 (481) | 1.00 | - |
| Mixed | 41.6 (806) | 41.9 (580) | 1.09 | [0.85,1.40] |
| Far away | 42.9 (892) | 40.8 (628) | 1.02 | [0.79,1.31] |
| Likelihood ratio test v logistic regression | p = 0.39 | |||
†Reference category.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
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.