Table 2.
Multilevel Logistic Regressions of outcome 1 (MI only) and outcome2 (any CVDs)
| Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 ‡ + all neighbourhood factors | Model 2 + selected individual factors | Model 3 + BMI and physical activity | ||||
| MI only: Odds ratio (95% CI) | Any CVDs: Odds ratio (95% CI) | MI only: Odds ratio (95% CI) | Any CVDs: Odds ratio (95% CI) | MI only: Odds ratio (95% CI) | Any CVDs: Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Total (n = 2411) | Neighbourhood level factors | |||||
| Median household income (in $10,000) | 0.92 (0.85-0.98)* | 0.96 (0.94-0.98)* | 0.94 (0.86-1.02) | 0.98 (0.94-1.02) | 1.02 (0.89-1.15) | 1.16 (0.79-1.53) |
| Food stores density | ||||||
| Q1 (low) vs. Q4 (high) | 1.60 (1.11-2.10)** | 1.48 (1.07-1.90)** | 1.23 (1.02-1.44)* | 1.12 (1.01-1.23)* | 1.07 (0.99-1.15) | 1.03 (0.92-1.14) |
| Q2 vs. Q4 | 1.51 (0.99-2.02) | 1.39 (0.95-1.83) | 1.24 (0.95-1.53) | 1.04 (0.89-1.19) | 1.04 (0.90-1.18) | 1.02 (0.87-1.17) |
| Q3 vs. Q4 | 1.43 (0.92-1.93) | 1.18 (0.82-1.54) | 1.09 (0.91-1.27) | 0.99 (0.80-1.18) | 1.01 (0.89-1.13) | 0.99 (0.78-1.2) |
| Fast food density | ||||||
| Q1 (low) vs. Q4 (high) | 0.89 (0.81-0.97)* | 0.9 (0.83-0.96)* | 0.95 (0.91-0.98)* | 0.97 (0.95-0.99)* | 1.00 (0.94-1.07) | 1.01 (0.93-1.09) |
| Q2 vs. Q4 | 0.96 (0.94-0.99)* | 0.99 (0.90-1.09) | 1.00 (0.93-1.07) | 1.02 (0.96-1.08) | 1.01 (0.84-1.18) | 1.07 (0.87-1.27) |
| Q3 vs. Q4 | 1.01 (0.8-1.22) | 1.01 (0.91-1.11) | 1.02 (0.86-1.15) | 1.01 (0.94-1.08) | 1.03 (0.74-1.32) | 1.04 (0.81-1.27) |
| Proportion CT Parks and recreational | ||||||
| Q1 (low) vs. Q4 (high) | 1.19 (1.10-1.31)** | 1.17 (0.31-2.03) | 1.1 (1.02-1.18)* | 0.98 (0.44-1.52) | 1.05 (0.80-1.30) | 1.03 (0.11-1.95) |
| Q2 vs. Q4 | 1.07 (1.01-1.13)* | 1.13 (0.21-2.05) | 1.02 (0.73-1.31) | 0.99 (0.27-1.71) | 1.09 (0.63-1.55) | 1.15 (0.22-2.08) |
| Q3 vs. Q4 | 1.0 (0.89-1.11) | 1.03 (0.53-1.53) | 1.02 (0.84-1.20) | 1.17 (0.46-1.88) | 1.06 (0.72-1.40) | 1.21 (0.47-1.95) |
| Violent crimes per capita | ||||||
| Q1 (low) vs. Q4 (high) | 0.85 (0.78-0.92)* | 0.79 (0.71-0.87)*** | 0.87 (0.76-0.98)* | 0.80 (0.71-0.89)*** | 0.93 (0.87-0.99)* | 0.82 (0.72-0.92)** |
| Q2 vs. Q4 | 0.89 (0.82-0.96)* | 0.84 (0.73-0.95)** | 0.93 (0.85-1.01) | 0.88 (0.79-0.97)* | 0.94 (0.79-1.09) | 0.90 (0.78-1.02) |
| Q3 vs. Q4 | 0.91 (0.80-1.02) | 0.89 (0.67-1.11) | 0.98 (0.87-1.09) | 0.95 (0.72-1.18) | 1.02 (0.86-1.18) | 1.00 (0.74-1.27) |
| Proportion of housing requiring major repairs in CT | ||||||
| Q1 (low) vs. Q4 (high) | 0.79 (0.28-1.30) | 0.66 (0.25-1.07) | 0.90 (0.61-1.19) | 0.97 (0.48-1.46) | 0.94 (0.62-1.10) | 0.99 (0.51-1.47) |
| Q2 vs. Q4 | 0.83 (0.42-1.24) | 0.80 (0.45-1.15) | 0.92 (0.48-1.36) | 1.00 (0.47-1.54) | 0.96 (0.51-1.41) | 1.03 (0.54-1.52) |
| Q3 vs. Q4 | 0.91 (0.6-1.22) | 0.74 (0.37-1.11) | 0.94 (0.55-1.33) | 1.02 (0.46-1.58) | 0.98 (0.57-1.39) | 1.09 (0.82-1.36) |
| Within 100 m of a major road | 4.07 (2.91-7.56)*** | 2.33 (1.45-3.97)** | 3.86 (2.39-6.13)*** | 2.01 (1.87-2.55)** | 3.79 (2.25-5.53)*** | 1.97 (1.67-2.49)** |
| Disturbed by noise at home 1 | ||||||
| 1. Strongly Agree | 5.21 (1.88-15.78)*** | 3.37 (1.61-6.75)*** | 4.84 (1.69-13.63)** | 3.25 (1.59-6.19)** | 4.83 (1.65-13.20)** | 3.19 (1.55-6.25)** |
| 2. Agree | 1.51 (0.82-4.91) | 1.48 (0.84-3.83) | 1.41 (0.67-4.42) | 1.39 (0.41-3.74) | 1.38 (0.55-4.01) | 1.23 (0.47-3.66) |
| 3. Neither agree or disagree | 1.28 (0.59-3.89) | 1.17 (0.60-3.69) | 1.25 (0.52-3.72) | 1.16 (0.60-3.79) | 1.07 (0.52-3.59) | 1.01 (0.55-3.60) |
| 4. Disagree | 0.96 (0.48-4.56) | 1.06 (0.25-1.25) | 1.04 (0.19-3.17) | 0.79 (0.26-1.94) | 0.99 (0.40-4.12) | 0.80 (0.33-2.01) |
| Individual level factors | ||||||
| Age (in years) | 1.05 (1.01-1.09)** | 1.07 (1.04-1.09)*** | 1.04 (1.01-1.08)** | 1.07 (1.04-1.09)*** | ||
| Male | 4.91 (2.51-9.63)*** | 1.73 (1.15-2.59)** | 5.29 (2.60-10.76)*** | 1.71 (1.14-2.56)** | ||
| Visible Minority | 0.61 (0.30-1.25) | 0.86 (0.55-1.36) | 0.48 (0.21-1.06) | 0.75 (0.45-1.23) | ||
| Education 2 | ||||||
| Less than High School | 1.66 (0.51-5.37) | 3.66 (1.80-7.63)** | 1.36 (0.29-4.91) | 3.27 (1.56-6.90)** | ||
| High School Complete | 1.07 (0.47-2.47) | 1.27 (0.72-2.25) | 1.07 (0.44-2.61) | 1.26 (0.69-2.28) | ||
| Diploma Complete | 1.40 (0.69-2.86) | 1.59 (0.97-2.59) | 1.30 (0.61-2.78) | 1.43 (0.86-2.36) | ||
| After tax Family Income (in $10,000) | 0.89 (0.86-0.92)*** | 0.90 (0.86-0.94)** | 0.90 (0.84-0.96)** | 0.91 (0.87-0.95)** | ||
| Smoking 3 | ||||||
| Current smoker | 1.89 (1.24-2.54)** | 1.43 (1.08-1.78)** | 1.78 (1.21-2.36)** | 1.34 (1.08-1.60)** | ||
| Former smoker | 1.00 (0.55-1.46) | 0.98 (0.32-1.64) | 0.88 (0.41-1.36) | 0.90 (0.24-1.57) | ||
| Alcohol use 4 | ||||||
| Heavy alcohol use | 0.76 (0.40-1.45) | 0.86 (0.56-1.32) | 0.76 (0.29-1.23) | 0.86 (0.54-1.18) | ||
| Moderate alcohol use | 0.75 (0.35-1.65) | 0.55 (0.31-1.01) | 0.70 (0.23-1.17) | 0.63 (0.2-1.06) | ||
| BMI 5 | ||||||
| Underweight | 2.27 (0.29-17.89) | 1.83 (0.42-7.95) | ||||
| Overweight | 1.80 (0.86-3.80) | 1.45 (0.88-2.39) | ||||
| Obese | 2.52 (1.18-5.36)* | 2.73 (1.69-4.41)*** | ||||
| Engage in regular physical activity | 0.69 (0.38-1.26) | 0.68 (0.45-1.01) | ||||
| Variance Partition Coefficient (VPC) 6 | 8.82%*** | 7.31%*** | 6.11%** | 7.19%** | 5.75%** | 6.08%** |
| Pseudo-Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) | 19288.37 | 20147.68 | 14337.77 | 14769.52 | 13699.38 | 14667.89 |
City of Toronto, Canada 2009–2011 (n = 2411).
‡Model 1 estimated the bivariate association between neighbourhood income and the odds of a) MI and b) any CVDs (not shown in table).
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Bolded values are statistically significance with at least p<0.05.
1noise reference category = strongly disagree; 2Education; 2Education level reference category = undergrad and above; 3smoking reference category = non-smoker; 4alcohol use reference category = light/no alcohol use; 4noise reference category = strongly disagree; 5BMI reference category = normal (BMI = 18.5-24.9). 6This is the percentage of variance found in all neighbourhood-level variables. Our method of estimation follows the model linearization approach in Goldstein et al. [70].