Table 3.
Logistic regression analysis of the associations between child weight status and layers of the Social Ecological Model; random sample of households living in low-income, racially diverse communities in four cities in the state of New Jersey, USA, 2009–2010 (New Jersey Childhood Obesity Study)
| n 560* | Adjusted OR | 95 % CI | P value | Joint significance† | Tjur R 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall model | 0·157 | ||||
| Geospatial variables (GIS measures) | |||||
| Presence of large park in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 0·41 | 0·24, 0·70 | 0·001 | F(6, 480)=2·38, P=0·028 | 0·140 |
| Presence of PA facility in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 0·51 | 0·22, 1·19 | 0·12 | ||
| Presence of supermarket in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 0·96 | 0·33, 2·77 | 0·94 | ||
| Presence of convenience store in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 1·52 | 0·74, 3·11 | 0·26 | ||
| Presence of limited-service restaurant in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 0·67 | 0·38, 1·20 | 0·18 | ||
| Presence of healthy food outlet in 0·40 km (¼ mile) | 1·03 | 0·58, 1·83 | 0·91 | ||
| Parental perceptions of neighbourhood | |||||
| PA opportunities in neighbourhood | 0·90 | 0·54, 1·51 | 0·69 | F(13, 473)=1·77, P=0·045 | 0·109 |
| Safety from traffic in neighbourhood | 1·31 | 0·55, 3·07 | 0·54 | ||
| Safety from crime in neighbourhood | 1·90 | 0·92, 3·95 | 0·08 | ||
| Neighbourhood pleasant for PA | 0·55 | 0·25, 1·23 | 0·15 | ||
| Parks to play in neighbourhood | 1·58 | 0·82, 3·05 | 0·17 | ||
| PA facilities in neighbourhood | 0·66 | 0·40, 1·10 | 0·11 | ||
| Good sidewalk condition | 0·70 | 0·29, 1·68 | 0·43 | ||
| Easy to get to store | 0·56 | 0·32, 0·98 | 0·04 | ||
| FV available | 0·99 | 0·78, 1·25 | 0·93 | ||
| FV inexpensive | 0·86 | 0·49, 1·52 | 0·61 | ||
| LFF available | 0·89 | 0·71, 1·11 | 0·29 | ||
| LFF inexpensive | 1·38 | 0·80, 2·38 | 0·25 | ||
| Buy FV at main food store | 0·39 | 0·22, 0·68 | 0·001 | ||
| Neighbourhood characteristics | |||||
| Neighbourhood income | F(5,481)=4·10, Prob>F=0·001 | 0·117 | |||
| Lower (ref.) | |||||
| Middle | 0·89 | 0·49, 1·63 | 0·72 | ||
| Higher | 0·39 | 0·21, 0·72 | 0·003 | ||
| Neighbourhood race | |||||
| Majority Black (ref.) | |||||
| Majority White | 7·32 | 1·95, 27·5 | 0·003 | ||
| Majority Hispanic | 1·05 | 0·53, 2·09 | 0·88 | ||
| Mixed | 0·45 | 0·21, 0·94 | 0·03 | ||
| Household characteristics | |||||
| Poverty status | F(6, 480)=1·85, Prob>F=0·088 | 0·144 | |||
| ≤200 % FPL (ref.) | |||||
| >200 % FPL | 1·69 | 0·76, 3·78 | 0·20 | ||
| SNAP participation | 0·56 | 0·31, 1·02 | 0·06 | ||
| Other federal programme participation | 1·60 | 0·89, 2·90 | 0·12 | ||
| Food secure | 0·58 | 0·29, 1·13 | 0·11 | ||
| Non-English speaking household | 1·99 | 0·89, 4·41 | 0·09 | ||
| Car for food shopping | 0·59 | 0·26, 1·33 | 0·20 | ||
| Parent demographics | |||||
| Mother’s education | F(4, 482)=5·55, Prob>F=·0002 | 0·103 | |||
| High school or less (ref.) | |||||
| Some college | 0·59 | 0·32, 1·07 | 0·08 | ||
| College plus | 0·36 | 0·14, 0·89 | 0·03 | ||
| Parent foreign born | 0·54 | 0·26, 1·11 | 0·10 | ||
| Parent BMI | 1·09 | 1·04, 1·14 | <0·001 | ||
| Child demographics | |||||
| Age | F(6, 480)=3·22, Prob>F=0·004 | 0·138 | |||
| 3–5 years (ref.) | |||||
| 6–11 years | 3·07 | 1·58, 5·95 | 0·001 | ||
| 12–19 years | 1·28 | 0·65, 2·49 | 0·47 | ||
| Female | 0·87 | 0·55, 1·39 | 0·57 | ||
| Race/ethnicity | |||||
| Non-Hispanic Black (ref.) | |||||
| Non-Hispanic White | 0·57 | 0·20, 1·67 | 0·31 | ||
| Hispanic | 0·84 | 0·41, 1·73 | 0·64 | ||
| Other | 1·70 | 0·61, 4·71 | 0·31 | ||
GIS, geographical information system; PA, physical activity; FV, fruit and vegetables; LFF, low-fat foods; ref., referent category; FPL, federal poverty level; SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Analysis based on weighted sample and adjusted for complex survey design.
*
Unweighted n.
†
Joint significance calculated using testparm command in Stata software.