Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2016 Sep 14;23(23):23840–23853. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7585-1

People with dyslexia and heart, chest, skin, digestive, musculoskeletal, vision, learning, speech and mental disorders were more dissatisfied with neighbourhoods: Scottish Household Survey, 2007–2008

Ivy Shiue 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC5110607  PMID: 27628699

Abstract

Rarely do we know the perception toward neighbourhoods in people specifically with health conditions. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to understand the perception toward neighbourhoods among adults with a series of the existing health conditions in a country-wide and population-based setting. Data were retrieved from and analysed in Scottish Household Survey, 2007–2008. Information on demographics, self-reported health conditions and perception toward neighbourhoods and the surrounding facilities was obtained by household interview. Analysis including chi-square test, t test and logistic regression modelling were performed. Of 19,150 Scottish adults (aged 16–80) included in the study cohort, 1079 (7.7 %) people were dissatisfied with their living areas; particularly for those who experienced harassment (15.4 %), did not recycle or with dyslexia, chest, digestive, mental and musculoskeletal problems. Twenty to forty per cent reported common neighbourhood problems including noise, rubbish, disputes, graffiti, harassment and drug misuse. People with heart or digestive problems were more dissatisfied with the existing parks and open space. People with arthritis, chest or hearing problems were more dissatisfied with the waste management condition. People with dyslexia were more dissatisfied with the existing public transportation. People with heart problems were more dissatisfied with the current street cleaning condition. People with hearing, vision, speech, learning problems or dyslexia were also more dissatisfied with sports and recreational facilities. People with heart, chest, skin, digestive, musculoskeletal, vision, learning, speech and mental disorders and dyslexia were more dissatisfied with their current neighbourhood environments. Upgrading neighbourhood planning to tackle social environment injustice and put pleasant life experience as priorty would be suggested.

Graphical abstract.

Graphical abstract

interrelations of individual health and neighbourhood health

Keywords: Dyslexia, Chronic disease, Mental health, Adult health, Built environment, Neighbourhood satisfaction, Cognition performance

Introduction

Evidence before this study

Effects of neighbourhoods on human health have been described, and the existing literature has documented that problematic neighbourhoods could predict different social and health issues such as drug-use patterns into middle adulthood from local to global levels (Reitzel 2012). Apart from the known risks such as deprivation and crime rates, little is known on the perceived neighbourhood problems which would be of value incorporating place-based approach to optimise health and well-being in regional or national environments (Warr et al. 2009). From a socio-psychological point of view, it is known that life satisfaction falls under the broad area of subjective well-being (Bowling et al. 1993). Similarly, neighbourhood satisfaction as an environmental factor of human living society could refer to an overall assessment of one’s satisfaction toward his/her living surrounding which would be an important indicator of subjective well-being as well and consequently quality of life (Chapman and Beaudet 1983). Recently, it has been observed that perceived noise, water, rubbish, traffic and etc. among adults and the very old across Europe have led to poor mental health (Shiue 2014a). Poor perception toward neighbourhoods has also been found to be associated with emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents in the UK (Shiue 2014b).

Knowledge gap

Following this context, however, rarely do we know the perception toward neighbourhoods in people specifically with health conditions due to a lack of research evidence in this area. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to understand the perception toward neighbourhoods among adults with a series of the existing health conditions and disabilities in a country-wide and population-based setting.

Methods

Study sample

Scottish Household Survey (more details via http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/16002) has been a country-wide, population-based, multi-year (every 2 years) study since 1999. It covers housing, social justice and transport to effectively evaluate the composition, characteristics, attitudes and behaviours of households and individuals at national and sub-national level in Scotland (more details via http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002/SurveyOverview/). It aims to allow the relationships between social variables within households to be examined, supporting cross-departmental and inter-departmental policies to optimise the Scottish welfare. In the current analysis, the most recent publicly available data, the 2007–2008 cohort (more details via http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16002/DataAccesAgreements), on demographics, self-reported health conditions and perception toward neighbourhoods and the surrounding facilities among Scottish adults was obtained by household interview.

Variables and analyses

Self-reported health conditions included arthritis, speech impairment, chest or breathing problems; diabetes; difficulty hearing; difficulty seeing (even when wearing glasses/lenses); dyslexia; epilepsy; heart, blood pressure or circulatory problems; learning or behavioural problems; mental health problems; problems or disability related to arms, hands, legs, feet, back or neck; severe disfigurement, skin condition, allergies stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problem; some other progressive disability or illness or some other health problem or disability (Question: Which of the conditions listed on this card best describes the ill-health or disability that the person has?). Study outcome variables included perception toward the way local agency dealing with neighbourhood issues, sports/leisure facilities, library facilities, museum/gallery facilities, theatre facilities, parks and open space, local health services, police service, fire service, refuse collection, local schools, social care or social work services, public transport and street cleaning (Question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of these services?). Potential covariates including age, sex and experience of harassment were adjusted. Effects were estimated by using odds ratios (OR) or relative risk ratios (RRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) depending on the study outcome variables being binary or categorical, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Statistical software STATA version 13.0 (STATA, College Station, Texas, USA) was used to perform all the analyses.

Ethics consideration

Since there is only secondary data analyses employed without any participant personal information identified by extracting statistical data from the UK Data Archive website in the present study, no further ethics approval for conducting the present study is required (more details via http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/Secondary-analysis-106).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Of 19,150 Scottish adults (aged 16–80) included in the study cohort, 1079 (7.7 %) people were dissatisfied with their living areas; particularly for those who had experienced harassment (15.4 % of all adults), did not do recycling or with dyslexia, chest, digestive, mental and musculoskeletal problems. 20–40 % reported common neighbourhood problems including noise, rubbish, disputes, graffiti, harassment and drug misuse (see Table 1). Women or people with a younger age could be more dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods, compared with their counterparts. Geographically, the top 3 sub-regions with higher proportion of dissatisfaction with neighbourhoods are Greater Glasgow and Cly (11.2 %), Lanarkshire (9.1 %) and Forth Valley (8.2 %).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Scottish adults aged 16–80 (n = 19,150) and their neighbourhoods

A good place to live (n = 13,054, 92.4 %) A poor place to live (n = 1079, 7.7 %) P value
Sex
Male 6615 (93.7 %) 446 (6.3 %) <0.001
Female 6439 (91.1 %) 633 (9.0 %)
Age 54.8 ± 17.3 46.1 ± 16.9 <0.001
16–39 1896 (86.9 %) 435 (13.1 %)
40–79 8941 (93.7 %) 601 (6.3 %)
80 1217 (96.6 %) 43 (3.4 %)
Ethnicity
White 12,818 (92.4 %) 1057 (7.6 %) 0.644
Others 229 (91.6 %) 21 (8.4 %)
Ever harassment experience
No 11,263 (94.2 %) 693 (5.8 %) <0.001
Yes 1780 (82.2 %) 385 (17.8 %)
How common are neighbourhood problems?
Noisy neighbours 859 (65.5 %) 453 (34.5 %) <0.001
No 12,133 (95.1 %) 623 (4.9 %)
Vandalism, graffiti 1586 (69.4 %) 699 (30.6 %) <0.001
No 11,389 (96.8 %) 373 (3.2 %)
Rubbish around 3198 (80.3 %) 785 (19.7 %) <0.001
No 9806 (97.1 %) 292 (2.9 %)
Neighbour disputes 433 (57.7 %) 317 (42.3 %) <0.001
No 12,455 (94.4 %) 736 (5.6 %)
Intimidating or harassing others 1037 (65.0 %) 559 (35.0 %) <0.001
No 11,868 (96.1 %) 486 (3.9 %)
Drug misuse 1204 (65.4 %) 637 (34.6 %) <0.001
No 10,845 (97.2 %) 318 (6.9 %)
Rowdy behaviours 1585 (68.4 %) 733 (31.6 %) <0.001
No 11,346 (97.1 %) 336 (2.9 %)
Abandoned/burnt vehicles 181 (60.9 %) 116 (39.1 %) <0.001
No 12,713 (93.1 %) 938 (6.9 %)
Recycling
Glass, jars 6791 (94.9 %) 368 (5.1 %) <0.001
None 2994 (87.8 %) 416 (12.2 %)
Plastic bottles 568 (94.1 %) 358 (5.9 %) <0.001
None 4116 (90.6 %) 426 (9.4 %)
Metal cans 5877 (94.5 %) 341 (5.5 %) <0.001
None 3907 (89.8 %) 443 (10.2 %)
Paper, cardboard 7948 (94.2 %) 493 (5.8 %) <0.001
None 1837 (86.3 %) 291 (13.7 %)
Local health boards
Grampian 1329 (95.5 %) 62 (4.5 %) <0.001
Tayside 947 (92.6 %) 76 (7.4 %)
Fife 914 (92.4 %) 75 (7.6 %)
Lothian 1809 (92.3 %) 152 (7.8 %)
Borders 286 (95.0 %) 15 (5.0 %)
Forth Valley 763 (91.8 %) 68 (8.2 %)
Lanarkshire 1066 (90.9 %) 107 (9.1 %)
Ayrshire and Arran 882 (92.1 %) 76 (7.9 %)
Dumfries and Galloway 444 (94.7 %) 25 (5.3 %)
Orkney 266 (98.9 %) 3 (1.1 %)
Shetland 219 (98.7 %) 3 (1.4 %)
Western Isles 228 (97.4 %) 6 (2.6 %)
Greater Glasgow and Cly 2889 (88.8 %) 366 (11.2 %)
Highland 1012 (95.7 %) 45 (4.3 %)

Analytical statistics

In Table 2, associations between existing health conditions and perception toward the way that the local agency dealt with neighbourhood issues are shown while in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, associations between existing health conditions and perception toward specific neighbourhood facilities are presented accordingly. In general, people with heart or digestive problems were more dissatisfied with the existing parks and open space. People with arthritis, chest or hearing problems were more dissatisfied with the refuse collection condition. People with dyslexia were more dissatisfied with the existing public transportation. People with heart problems were more dissatisfied with the current street cleaning condition. People with hearing, vision, speech, learning problems or dyslexia were also more dissatisfied with sports and recreational facilities.

Table 2.

Associations between health conditions and neighbourhood satisfaction in Scottish adults aged 16–80

A good place to live (n = 13,054, 92.4 %) A poor place to live (n = 1079, 7.7 %) OR-1 (95 % CI) P value OR-2 (95 % CI) P value
Speech impairment 41 (87.2 %) 6 (12.8 %) 1.26 (0.52–3.04) 0.612 0.95 (0.35–2.61) 0.922
No 3653 (90.0 %) 408 (10.1 %) 1.00 1.00
Chest/breathing problem 626 (87.4 %) 90 (12.6 %) 1.46 (1.13–1.88) 0.004 1.33 (0.97–1.81) 0.077
No 2068 (90.5 %) 324 9.6 %) 1.00 1.00
Diabetes 453 (91.2 %) 44 (8.9 %) 1.03 (0.73–1.44) 0.871 1.38 (0.94–2.03) 0.100
No 3241 (89.8 %) 370 (10.3 %) 1.00 1.00
Difficulty hearing 302 (90.4 %) 32 (9.6 %) 1.33 (0.90–1.97) 0.156 1.16 (0.70–1.90) 0.558
No 3392 (89.9 %) 382 (10.1 %) 1.00 1.00
Difficulty seeing 280 (90.9 %) 28 (9.1 %) 1.11 (0.73–1.68) 0.625 1.04 (0.63–1.71) 0.886
No 3414 (89.8 %) 386 (10.2 %) 1.00 1.00
Dyslexia 22 (66.7 %) 11 (33.3 %) 2.27 (1.05–4.90) 0.038 2.63 (1.04–6.62) 0.040
No 3671 (90.1 %) 403 (9.9 %) 1.00 1.00
Epilepsy 86 (81.1 %) 20 (18.9 %) 1.32 (0.79–2.22) 0.294 1.54 (0.80–2.93) 0.193
No 3608 (90.2 %) 394 (9.9 %) 1.00 1.00
Heart/circulatory problem 1267 (91.5 %) 118 (8.5 %) 1.18 (0.93–1.51) 0.170 1.24 (0.94–1.65) 0.134
No 2427 (89.1 %) 296 (10.9 %) 1.00 1.00
Learning/behavioural problem 25 (89.3 %) 3 (10.7 %) 0.48 (0.14–1.63) 0.240 0.28 (0.04–2.21) 0.228
No 3669 (89.9 %) 411 (10.1 %) 1.00 1.00
Mental health problem 350 (78.1 %) 98 (21.9 %) 1.57 (1.19–2.06) 0.001 1.21 (0.87–1.69) 0.266
No 3344 (91.45) 316 (8.6 %) 1.00 1.00
Disability: arms, hands 421 (87.3 %) 61 (12.7 %) 1.39 (1.03–1.87) 0.030 1.23 (0.85–1.77) 0.265
No 3273 (90.3 %) 353 (9.7 %) 1.00 1.00
Disability: legs, feet 1019 (91.1 %) 100 (8.9 %) 1.01 (0.79–1.29) 0.911 1.09 (0.82–1.45) 0.559
No 2675 (89.5 %) 314 (10.5 %) 1.00 1.00
Disability: neck, back 642 (87.8 %) 89 (12.2 %) 1.29 (1.00–1.66) 0.052 1.35 (1.00–1.82) 0.051
No 3052 (90.4 %) 325 (9.6 %) 1.00 1.00
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 74 (84.1 %) 14 (15.9 %) 1.57 (0.86–2.85) 0.139 1.16 (0.55–2.46) 0.690
No 3620 (90.1 %) 400 (10.0 %) 1.00 1.00
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 298 (85.4 %) 51 (14.6 %) 1.54 (1.11–2.13) 0.009 1.49 (1.02–2.09) 0.041
No 3396 (90.3 %) 363 (9.7 %) 1.00 1.00
Some other progressive disability or illness 211 (89.8 %) 24 (10.2 %) 1.04 (0.67–1.63) 0.847 1.15 (0.68–1.95) 0.593
No 3483 (89.9 %) 390 (10.1 %) 1.00 1.00
Some other health problem or disability 493 (89.5 %) 58 (10.5 %) 0.96 (0.71–1.30) 0.808 0.98 (0.69–1.39) 0.916
No 3201 (90.0 %) 356 (10.0 %) 1.00 1.00
Arthritis 1099 (90.9 %) 110 (9.1 %) 1.22 (0.95–1.56) 0.112 1.16 (0.87–1.56) 0.321
No 2595 (89.5 %) 304 (10.5 %) 1.00 1.00

OR-1 adjusted for age and sex, OR-2 adjusted for age, sex and ever harassment

Table 3.

Associations between health conditions and perception toward dealt neighbourhood issues in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 6169, 43.6 %) Neutral (n = 5465, 38.6 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 2526, 17.8 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Ever harassment 709 (32.6 %) 713 (32.8 %) 1.10 (0.98–1.23) 754 (34.8 %) 3.03 (2.69–3.41)
No 5458 (45.6 %) 4746 (39.6 %) 1771 (14.8 %)
Speech impairment 22 (45.8 %) 16 (33.3 %) 0.93 (0.49–1.79) 10 (20.8 %) 0.83 (0.38–1.80)
No 1797 (44.2 %) 1433 (35.3 %) 835 (20.5 %)
Chest/breathing problem 334 (46.9 %) 208 (20.2 %) 0.75 (0.62–0.90) 170 (23.9 %) 1.18 (0.95–1.46)
No 1485 (43.7 %) 1241 (36.5 %) 675 (19.9 %)
Diabetes 239 (48.1 %) 168 (33.8 %) 0.86 (0.70–1.07) 90 (18.1 %) 0.85 (0.65–1.11)
No 1580 (43.7 %) 1281 (35.4 %) 755 (20.9 %)
Difficulty hearing 148 (44.6 %) 122 (36.8 %) 1.00 (0.78–1.29) 62 (18.7 %) 1.06 (0.77–1.46)
No 1671 (44.2 %) 1327 (35.1 %) 783 (20.7 %)
Difficulty seeing 133 (43.0 %) 115 (37.2 %) 1.06 (0.82–1.38) 61 (19.7 %) 1.08 (0.78–1.50)
No 1686 (44.3 %) 1334 (35.1 %) 784 (20.6 %)
Dyslexia 8 (24.2 %) 11 (33.3 %) 1.92 (0.77–4.81) 14 (42.4 %) 2.66 (1.08–6.56)
No 1811 (44.4 %) 1438 (35.3 %) 831 (20.4 %)
Epilepsy 50 (46.7 %) 29 (27.1 %) 0.76 (0.48–1.22) 28 (26.2 %) 0.97 (0.59–1.59)
No 1769 (44.2 %) 1420 (35.5 %) 817 (20.4 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 148 (44.6 %) 122 (36.8 %) 0.97 (0.83–1.13) 62 (18.7 %) 1.26 (1.05–1.52)
No 1761 (44.2 %) 1327 (35.1 %) 783 (20.7 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 12 (40.0 %) 12 (40.0 %) 1.44 (0.64–3.24) 6 (20.0 %) 0.67 (0.24–1.86)
No 1807 (44.3 %) 1437 (35.2 %) 839 (20.6 %)
Mental health problem 189 (42.1 %) 130 (29.0 %) 0.90 (0.70–1.17) 130 (29.0 %) 0.91 (0.69–1.19)
No 1630 (44.5 %) 1319 (36.0 %) 715 (19.5 %)
Disability: arms, hands 202 (41.9 %) 181 (37.6 %) 1.15 (0.92–1.42) 99 (20.5 %) 1.05 (0.81–1.37)
No 1617 (44.5 %) 1268 (34.9 %) 746 (20.6 %)
Disability: legs, feet 478 (42.7 %) 431 (38.5 %) 1.17 (1.00–1.37) 634 (21.2 %) 1.02 (0.84–1.24)
No 1341 (44.8 %) 1018 (34.0 %) 211 (18.8 %)
Disability: neck, back 321 (44.0 %) 234 (32.1 %) 0.90 (0.75–1.08) 175 (24.0 %) 1.15 (0.93–1.42)
No 1498 (44.3 %) 1215 (35.9 %) 670 (19.8 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 41 (46.6 %) 24 (27.3 %) 0.74 (0.44–1.23) 23 (26.1 %) 1.08 (0.63–1.85)
No 1778 (44.2 %) 1425 (35.4 %) 822 (20.4 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 156 (44.6 %) 111 (31.7 %) 0.88 (0.68–1.14) 83 (23.7 %) 1.09 (0.82–1.46)
No 1663 (44.2 %) 1338 (35.6 %) 762 (20.3 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 103 (44.0 %) 86 (36.8 %) 1.05 (0.78–1.41) 45 (19.2 %) 0.92 (0.63–1.33)
No 1716 (44.2 %) 1363 (35.1 %) 800 (20.6 %)
Some other health problem or disability 243 (43.9 %) 193 (34.9 %) 0.99 (0.81–1.22) 117 (21.2 %) 0.96 (0.75–1.23)
No 1576 (44.3 %) 1256 (35.3 %) 728 (20.5 %)
Arthritis 551 (45.5 %) 433 (35.7 %) 0.93 (0.80–1.09) 228 (18.8 %) 1.01 (0.84–1.23)
No 1268 (43.7 %) 1016 (35.0 %) 617 (21.3 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 4.

Associations between health conditions and perception on sports/leisure facilities in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 6325, 45.1 %) Neutral (n = 6649, 47.4 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 1046, 7.5 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 17 (40.5 %) 25 (59.5 %) 1.04 (0.53–2.05) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1359 (33.9 %) 2426 (60.4 %) 230 (5.7 %)
Chest/breathing problem 233 (31.8 %) 449 (61.3 %) 1.16 (0.95–1.42) 51 (7.0 %) 1.51 (1.03–2.20)
No 1143 (34.4 %) 2002 (60.2 %) 179 (5.4 %)
Diabetes 158 (32.2 %) 309 (62.9 %) 1.04 (0.82–1.31) 24 (4.9 %) 1.08 (0.67–1.76)
No 1218 (34.2 %) 2142 (60.1 %) 206 (5.8 %)
Difficulty hearing 95 (29.0 %) 217 (66.2 %) 1.11 (0.83–1.48) 16 (4.9 %) 1.25 (0.68–2.28)
No 1281 (34.4 %) 2234 (59.9 %) 214 (5.7 %)
Difficulty seeing 91 (28.0 %) 214 (65.9 %) 1.14 (0.85–1.53) 20 (6.2 %) 1.69 (0.99–2.89)
No 1285 (34.4 %) 2237 (59.9 %) 210 (5.6 %)
Dyslexia 10 (32.3 %) 17 (54.8 %) 1.60 (0.65–3.96) 4 (12.9 %) 2.19 (0.64–7.51)
No 1366 (33.9 %) 2434 (60.5 %) 226 (5.6 %)
Epilepsy 30 (29.7 %) 64 (63.4 %) 1.58 (0.95–2.63) 7 (6.9 %) 1.20 (0.48–3.02)
No 1346 (34.0 %) 2387 (60.3 %) 223 (5.6 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 446 (32.3 %) 855 (62.0 %) 0.84 (0.71–0.99) 79 (5.7 %) 1.34 (0.95–1.89)
No 930 (34.7 %) 1596 (59.6 %) 151 (5.6 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 9 (30.0 %) 19 (63.3 %) 2.68 (0.93–7.67) 2 (6.7 %) 1.67 (0.32–8.82)
No 1367 (34.0 %) 2432 (60.4 %) 228 (5.7 %)
Mental health problem 188 (42.4 %) 220 (49.7 %) 1.05 (0.81–1.35) 35 (7.9 %) 0.74 (0.46–1.18)
No 1188 (32.9 %) 2231 (61.7 %) 195 (5.4 %)
Disability: arms, hands 168 (35.2 %) 280 (58.6 %) 1.00 (0.79–1.26) 30 (6.3 %) 0.98 (0.60–1.59)
No 1208 (33.8 %) 2171 (60.7 %) 200 (5.6 %)
Disability: legs, feet 326 (29.3 %) 724 (65.2 %) 1.27 (1.07–1.51) 61 (5.5 %) 1.15 (0.81–1.65)
No 1050 (35.6 %) 1727 (58.6 %) 169 (5.7 %)
Disability: neck, back 217 (30.4 %) 457 (63.9 %) 1.30 (1.06–1.59) 41 (5.7 %) 0.96 (0.63–1.46)
No 1159 (34.7 %) 1994 (59.7 %) 189 (5.7 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 27 (34.6 %) 43 (55.1 %) 1.15 (0.67–1.97) 8 (10.3 %) 2.00 (0.87–4.60)
No 1349 (33.9 %) 2408 (60.5 %) 222 (5.6 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 123 (36.7 %) 200 (59.7 %) 1.00 (0.77–1.31) 12 (3.6 %) 0.55 (0.28–1.07)
No 1253 (33.7 %) 2251 (60.5 %) 218 (5.9 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 75 (31.4 %) 154 (64.4 %) 1.22 (0.87–1.70) 10 (4.2 %) 0.81 (0.38–1.72)
No 1301 (34.1 %) 2297 (60.2 %) 220 (5.8 %)
Some other health problem or disability 185 (35.3 %) 311 (59.4 %) 0.92 (0.74–1.14) 28 (5.3 %) 0.90 (0.58–1.41)
No 1191 (33.7 %) 2140 (60.6 %) 202 (5.7 %)
Arthritis 393 (33.1 %) 735 (62.0 %) 0.86 (0.73–1.02) 58 (4.9 %) 0.96 (0.67–1.39)
No 983 (34.2 %) 1716 (59.8 %) 172 (6.0 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 5.

Associations between health conditions and perception on library facilities in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 7769, 55.4 %) Neutral (n = 5883, 42.0 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 368, 2.6 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 13 (31.0 %) 29 (69.1 %) 3.34 (1.61–6.93) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 2114 (52.7 %) 1793 (44.7 %) 108 (2.7 %)
Chest/breathing problem 361 (49.3 %) 353 (48.2 %) 1.11 (0.93–1.34) 19 (2.6 %) 0.89 (0.51–1.57)
No 1766 (53.1 %) 1469 (44.2 %) 89 (2.7 %)
Diabetes 259 (52.8 %) 218 (44.4 %) 0.99 (0.80–1.23) 14 (2.9 %) 0.70 (0.33–1.47)
No 1868 (52.4 %) 1604 (45.0 %) 94 (2.6 %)
Difficulty hearing 157 (47.9 %) 166 (50.6 %) 1.14 (0.88–1.48) 5 (1.5 %) 0.69 (0.27–1.75)
No 1970 (52.8 %) 1656 (44.4 %) 103 (2.8 %)
Difficulty seeing 141 (43.4 %) 169 (52.0 %) 1.44 (1.10–1.88) 15 (4.6 %) 2.54 (1.38–4.66)
No 1986 (53.2 %) 1653 (24.3 %) 93 (2.5 %)
Dyslexia 11 (35.5 %) 17 (54.8 %) 1.79 (0.78–4.14) 3 (9.7 %) 2.95 (0.62–14.03)
No 2166 (52.6 %) 1805 (44.8 %) 105 (2.6 %)
Epilepsy 42 (41.6 %) 57 (56.4 %) 1.79 (1.13–2.86) 2 (2.0 %) 0.98 (0.23–4.19)
No 2085 (52.7 %) 1765 (44.6 %) 106 (2.7 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 738 (53.5 %) 602 (43.6 %) 0.87 (0.74–1.01) 40 (2.9 %) 1.35 (0.87–2.10)
No 1389 (51.9 %) 1220 (45.6 %) 68 (2.5 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 12 (40.0 %) 15 (50.0 %) 1.70 (0.66–4.34) 3 (10.0 %) 3.91 (0.79–19.39)
No 2115 (52.5 %) 1807 (44.9 %) 105 (2.6 %)
Mental health problem 240 (54.2 %) 187 (42.2 %) 1.03 (0.81–1.33) 16 (3.6 %) 1.07 (0.57–2.01)
No 1887 (52.2 %) 1635 (45.2 %) 92 (2.6 %)
Disability: arms, hands 1872 (52.3 %) 1612 (45.0 %) 1.03 (0.83–1.28) 95 (2.7 %) 1.06 (0.57–1.98)
No 255 (53.4 %) 210 (43.9 %) 13 (2.7 %)
Disability: legs, feet 559 (50.3 %) 526 (47.3 %) 1.13 (0.97–1.33) 26 (2.3 %) 0.83 (0.51–1.36)
No 1568 (53.2 %) 1296 (44.0 %) 82 (2.8 %)
Disability: neck, back 375 (52.5 %) 315 (44.1 %) 0.98 (0.82–1.18) 25 (3.5 %) 1.27 (0.78–2.08)
No 1752 (52.4 %) 1507 (45.1 %) 83 (2.5 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 47 (60.3 %) 30 (38.5 %) 0.80 (0.49–1.31) 1 (1.3 %) 0.40 (0.05–2.93)
No 2080 (52.3 %) 1792 (45.0 %) 107 (2.7 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 178 (53.1 %) 147 (43.9 %) 1.02 (0.79–1.32) 10 (3.0 %) 1.19 (0.60–2.35)
No 1949 (52.4 %) 1675 (45.0 %) 98 (2.6 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 130 (54.4 %) 101 (42.3 %) 0.99 (0.72–1.35) 8 (3.4 %) 1.43 (0.67–3.06)
No 1997 (52.3 %) 1721 (45.1 %) 100 (2.6 %)
Some other health problem or disability 1850 (52.4 %) 1587 (44.9 %) 1.11 (0.90–1.36) 96 (2.7 %) 0.86 (0.46–1.60)
No 277 (52.9 %) 235 (44.9 %) 12 (2.3 %)
Arthritis 1495 (52.1 %) 1297 (45.2 %) 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 79 (2.8 %) 0.83 (0.51–1.33)
No 632 (53.3 %) 525 (44.3 %) 29 (2.5 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 6.

Associations between health conditions and perception on museum/gallery facilities in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 5629, 40.2 %) Neutral (n = 7906, 56.4 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 485, 3.5 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 11 (26.2 %) 30 (71.4 %) 1.95 (0.89–4.31) 1 (2.4 %) 1.26 (0.16–10.19)
No 1347 (33.6 %) 2547 (63.4 %) 121 (3.0 %)
Chest/breathing problem 245 (33.4 %) 467 (63.7 %) 0.95 (0.79–1.16) 21 (2.9 %) 0.90 (0.52–1.55)
No 1113 (33.5 %) 2110 (63.5 %) 101 (3.5 %)
Diabetes 181 (36.9 %) 294 (59.9 %) 0.80 (0.64–0.99) 16 (3.3 %) 0.75 (0.39–1.45)
No 1177 (33.0 %) 2283 (64.0 %) 106 (3.0 %)
Difficulty hearing 97 (29.6 %) 221 (67.4 %) 1.11 (0.84–1.47) 10 (3.1 %) 1.26 (0.60–2.61)
No 1261 (33.8 %) 2356 (63.2 %) 112 (3.0 %)
Difficulty seeing 91 (28.0 %) 220 (67.7 %) 1.35 (1.01–1.81) 14 (4.3 %) 2.23 (1.18–4.21)
No 1267 (34.0 %) 2357 (63.2 %) 108 (2.9 %)
Dyslexia 14 (45.2 %) 15 (48.4 %) 0.49 (0.21–1.13) 2 (6.5 %) 1.52 (0.33–7.00)
No 1344 (33.4 %) 2562 (63.2 %) 120 (3.0 %)
Epilepsy 33 (32.7 %) 67 (66.3 %) 1.27 (0.78–2.07) 1 (1.0 %) N/a
No 1325 (33.5 %) 2510 (63.5 %) 121 (3.1 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 444 (32.2 %) 888 (64.4 %) 1.02 (0.87–1.20) 48 (3.5 %) 1.31 (0.85–2.03)
No 914 (34.1 %) 1689 (63.1 %) 74 (2.8 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 3 (10.0 %) 27 (90.0 %) 6.02 (1.39–26.13) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1355 (33.7 %) 2550 (63.3 %) 122 (3.0 %)
Mental health problem 153 (34.5 %) 279 (63.0 %) 1.11 (0.86–1.43) 11 (2.5 %) 0.61 (0.29–1.30)
No 1205 (33.3 %) 2298 (63.6 %) 111 (3.1 %)
Disability: arms, hands 153 (32.0 %) 303 (63.4 %) 1.18 (0.93–1.49) 22 (4.6 %) 1.98 (1.16–3.38)
No 1205 (33.7 %) 2274 (63.5 %) 100 (2.8 %)
Disability: legs, feet 333 (30.0 %) 740 (66.6 %) 1.22 (1.03–1.44) 38 (3.4 %) 1.71 (1.11–2.63)
No 1025 (34.8 %) 1837 (62.4 %) 84 (2.9 %)
Disability: neck, back 232 (32.5 %) 456 (63.8 %) 1.14 (0.93–1.38) 27 (3.8 %) 1.49 (0.92–2.43)
No 1126 (33.7 %) 2121 (63.5 %) 95 (2.8 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 30 (38.5 %) 46 (59.0 %) 0.94 (0.57–1.56) 2 (2.6 %) 0.83 (0.19–3.59)
No 1328 (33.4 %) 2531 (63.6 %) 120 (3.0 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 116 (34.6 %) 212 (63.3 %) 1.02 (0.78–1.33) 7 (2.1 %) 0.54 (0.21–1.36)
No 1242 (33.4 %) 2365 (63.5 %) 115 (3.1 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 87 (36.4 %) 147 (61.5 %) 0.87 (0.63–1.19) 5 (2.1 %) 0.78 (0.31–1.98)
No 1271 (33.3 %) 2430 (63.7 %) 117 (3.1 %)
Some other health problem or disability 173 (33.0 %) 336 (64.1 %) 1.12 (0.90–1.39) 15 (2.9 %) 1.12 (0.63–2.00)
No 1185 (33.5 %) 2241 (63.4 %) 107 (3.0 %)
Arthritis 399 (33.6 %) 753 (63.5 %) 0.96 (0.82–1.14) 34 (2.9 %) 1.00 (0.63–1.59)
No 959 (33.4 %) 1824 (63.5 %) 88 (3.1 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 7.

Associations between health conditions and perception on theatre facilities in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 5789, 41.3 %) Neutral (n = 7630, 54.4 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 601, 4.3 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 12 (28.6 %) 30 (71.4 %) 1.71 (0.80–3.65) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1383 (34.5 %) 2506 (62.4 %) 126 (3.1 %)
Chest/breathing problem 232 (31.7 %) 480 (65.5 %) 1.17 (0.96–1.42) 21 (2.9 %) 1.02 (0.60–1.73)
No 1163 (35.0 %) 2056 (61.9 %) 105 (3.2 %)
Diabetes 187 (38.1 %) 290 (59.1 %) 0.84 (0.67–1.05) 14 (2.9 %) 0.67 (0.34–1.32)
No 1208 (33.9 %) 2246 (63.0 %) 112 (3.1 %)
Difficulty hearing 103 (31.4 %) 217 (66.2 %) 1.05 (0.80–1.38) 8 (2.4 %) 0.84 (0.38–1.88)
No 1292 (34.7 %) 2319 (62.2 %) 118 (3.2 %)
Difficulty seeing 105 (32.3 %) 208 (64.0 %) 1.04 (0.79–1.36) 12 (3.7 %) 1.39 (0.71–2.70)
No 1290 (34.6 %) 2328 (62.4 %) 114 (3.1 %)
Dyslexia 8 (25.8 %) 18 (58.1 %) 1.07 (0.42–2.71) 5 (16.1 %) 7.31 (2.22–24.09)
No 1387 (34.5 %) 2518 (62.5 %) 121 (3.0 %)
Epilepsy 27 (26.7 %) 72 (71.3 %) 1.80 (1.06–3.05) 2 (2.0 %) 0.50 (0.07–3.88)
No 1368 (34.6 %) 2464 (62.3 %) 124 (3.1 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 492 (35.7 %) 846 (81.3 %) 0.83 (0.71–0.97) 42 (3.0 %) 0.85 (0.55–1.32)
No 903 (33.7 %) 1690 (63.1 %) 84 (3.1 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 2 (6.7 %) 28 (93.3 %) 10.90 (1.45–81.82) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1393 (34.6 %) 2508 (62.3 %) 126 (3.1 %)
Mental health problem 140 (31.6 %) 290 (65.5 %) 1.26 (0.97–1.64) 13 (2.9 %) 0.97 (0.49–1.91)
No 1255 (34.7 %) 2246 (62.2 %) 113 (3.1 %)
Disability: arms, hands 148 (31.0 %) 312 (65.3 %) 1.39 (1.09–1.76) 18 (3.8 %) 1.52 (0.85–2.71)
No 1247 (34.8 %) 2224 (62.1 %) 108 (3.0 %)
Disability: legs, feet 349 (31.4 %) 732 (65.9 %) 1.30 (1.10–1.54) 30 (2.7 %) 1.04 (0.66–1.65)
No 1046 (35.5 %) 1804 (61.2 %) 96 (3.3 %)
Disability: neck, back 232 (32.5 %) 460 (64.3 %) 1.28 (1.05–1.56) 23 (3.2 %) 1.31 (0.80–2.15)
No 1163 (34.8 %) 2076 (62.1 %) 103 (3.1 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 29 (37.2 %) 47 (60.3 %) 0.95 (0.58–1.58) 2 (2.6 %) 0.80 (0.19–3.45)
No 1366 (34.3 %) 2489 (62.6 %) 124 (3.1 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 120 (35.8 %) 208 (62.1 %) 0.98 (0.75–1.27) 7 (2.1 %) 0.60 (0.26–1.41)
No 1275 (34.3 %) 2328 (62.6 %) 119 (3.2 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 82 (34.3 %) 148 (61.9 %) 1.02 (0.74–1.40) 9 (3.8 %) 1.34 (0.62–2.88)
No 1313 (34.4 %) 2388 (62.6 %) 117 (3.1 %)
Some other health problem or disability 185 (35.3 %) 324 (61.8 %) 0.95 (0.77–1.17) 15 (2.9 %) 0.87 (0.49–1.57)
No 1210 (34.3 %) 2212 (62.2 %) 111 (3.1 %)
Arthritis 435 (36.7 %) 715 (60.3 %) 0.88 (0.74–1.03) 36 (3.0 %) 0.93 (0.60–1.46)
No 960 (33.4 %) 1821 (63.4 %) 90 (3.1 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 8.

Associations between health conditions and perception on parks and open space in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 9014, 64.3 %) Neutral (n = 4073, 29.1 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 933, 6.7 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 21 (50.0 %) 19 (45.2 %) 1.52 (0.77–3.00) 2 (4.8 %) 1.00 (0.23–4.36)
No 2225 (55.4 %) 1549 (38.6 %) 241 (6.0 %)
Chest/breathing problem 377 (51.4 %) 1261 (37.9 %) 1.14 (0.94–1.38) 49 (6.7 %) 1.26 (0.88–1.82)
No 1869 (56.2 %) 3077 (41.9 %) 194 (5.8 %)
Diabetes 2724 (55.8 %) 189 (38.5 %) 0.95 (0.76–1.20) 28 (5.7 %) 1.02 (0.64–1.62)
No 1972 (55.3 %) 1379 (38.7 %) 215 (6.0 %)
Difficulty hearing 159 (48.5 %) 152 (46.3 %) 1.08 (0.82–1.41) 17 (5.2 %) 1.18 (0.68–2.04)
No 2087 (56.0 %) 1416 (38.0 %) 226 (6.1 %)
Difficulty seeing 157 (48.3 %) 146 (44.9 %) 1.30 (0.99–1.70) 22 (6.8 %) 1.41 (0.83–2.37)
No 2089 (56.0 %) 1422 (38.1 %) 221 (5.9 %)
Dyslexia 20 (64.5 %) 10 (32.3 %) 0.97 (0.40–2.40) 1 (3.2 %) 0.43 (0.06–3.28)
No 2226 (55.3 %) 1558 (38.7 %) 242 (6.0 %)
Epilepsy 58 (57.4 %) 35 (34.7 %) 1.19 (0.73–1.94) 8 (7.9 %) 0.89 (0.34–2.28)
No 2188 (55.3 %) 1533 (38.8 %) 235 (5.9 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 749 (54.3 %) 539 (39.1 %) 0.87 (0.74–1.02) 92 (6.7 %) 1.44 (1.05–1.98)
No 1497 (55.9 %) 1029 (38.4 %) 151 (5.6 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 14 (46.7 %) 13 (43.3 %) 1.55 (0.59–4.08) 3 (10.0 %) 1.41 (0.3–6.53)
No 2232 (55.4 %) 1555 (38.6 %) 240 (6.0 %)
Mental health problem 263 (59.4 %) 136 (30.7 %) 1.07 (0.82–1.41) 44 (9.9 %) 1.24 (0.81–1.90)
No 1983 (54.9 %) 1432 (39.6 %) 199 (5.5 %)
Disability: arms, hands 258 (54.0 %) 182 (38.1 %) 1.07 (0.84–1.34) 38 (8.0 %) 1.47 (0.98–2.22)
No 1988 (55.6 %) 1386 (38.7 %) 205 (5.7 %)
Disability: legs, feet 554 (59.9 %) 490 (44.1 %) 1.30 (1.10–1.53) 67 (6.0 %) 1.23 (0.89–1.71)
No 1692 (57.4 %) 1078 (36.6 %) 176 (6.0 %)
Disability: neck, back 384 (53.7 %) 288 (40.3 %) 1.21 (1.00–1.47) 43 (6.0 %) 1.07 (0.74–1.56)
No 1862 (55.7 %) 1280 (38.3 %) 200 (6.0 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 42 (53.9 %) 29 (37.2 %) 1.11 (0.66–1.87) 7 (9.0 %) 1.63 (0.71–3.73)
No 2204 (55.4 %) 1539 (38.7 %) 236 (5.9 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 173 (51.6 %) 132 (39.4 %) 1.20 (0.92–1.58) 30 (9.0 %) 1.71 (1.09–2.67)
No 2073 (55.7 %) 1436 (38.6 %) 213 (5.7 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 127 (53.1 %) 98 (41.0 %) 1.19 (0.87–1.63) 14 (5.9 %) 0.68 (0.32–1.43)
No 2119 (55.5 %) 1470 (38.5 %) 229 (6.0 %)
Some other health problem or disability 300 (57.3 %) 195 (37.2 %) 0.90 (0.73–1.12) 29 (5.5 %) 0.79 (0.51–1.23)
No 1946 (55.1 %) 1373 (38.9 %) 214 (6.1 %)
Arthritis 628 (53.0 %) 474 (40.0 %) 0.93 (0.79–1.10) 84 (7.1 %) 1.34 (0.97–1.85)
No 1618 (56.4 %) 1094 (38.1 %) 159 (5.5 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 9.

Associations between health conditions and perception on refuse collection in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 11,332, 80.8 %) Neutral (n = 938, 6.7 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 1748, 12.5 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 34 (81.0 %) 4 (9.5 %) 1.82 (0.63–5.24) 4 (9.5 %) 1.17 (0.40–3.39)
No 3359 (83.7 %) 258 (6.4 %) 398 (9.9 %)
Chest/breathing problem 608 (83.0 %) 35 (4.8 %) 0.79 (0.53–1.19) 90 (12.3 %) 1.46 (1.09–1.94)
No 2785 (83.8 %) 227 (6.8 %) 312 (9.4 %)
Diabetes 409 (83.3 %) 28 (5.7 %) 1.00 (0.63–1.57) 54 (11.0 %) 1.27 (0.88–1.81)
No 2984 (83.7 %) 234 (6.6 %) 348 (9.8 %)
Difficulty hearing 283 (86.3 %) 17 (5.2 %) 0.97 (0.55–1.71) 28 (8.5 %) 0.93 (0.57–1.53)
No 3110 (83.4 %) 245 (6.6 %) 374 (10.0 %)
Difficulty seeing 262 (80.6 %) 20 (6.2 %) 1.00 (0.57–1.76) 43 (13.2 %) 1.73 (1.16–2.58)
No 3131 (83.9 %) 242 (6.5 %) 359 (9.6 %)
Dyslexia 26 (83.9 %) 0 (0 %) N/a 5 (16.1 %) 0.39 (0.09–1.69)
No 3367 (83.6 %) 262 (6.5 %) 397 (9.9 %)
Epilepsy 80 (79.2 %) 7 (6.9 %) 0.98 (0.41–2.31) 14 (13.9 %) 0.64 (0.29–1.44)
No 3313 (83.8 %) 255 (6.5 %) 388 (9.8 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 1186 (85.9 %) 73 (5.3 %) 0.92 (0.66–1.27) 121 (8.8 %) 1.10 (0.83–1.44)
No 2207 (82.4 %) 189 (7.1 %) 281 (10.5 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 25 (83.3 %) 3 (10.0 %) 1.06 (0.24–4.69) 2 (6.7 %) 0.27 (0.04–2.07)
No 3368 (83.6 %) 259 (6.4 %) 400 (9.9 %)
Mental health problem 334 (75.4 %) 38 (8.6 %) 1.08 (0.69–1.69) 71 (16.0 %) 1.00 (0.70–1.42)
No 3059 (84.6 %) 224 (6.2 %) 331 (9.2 %)
Disability: arms, hands 388 (81.2 %) 41 (8.6 %) 1.34 (0.90–2.02) 49 (10.3 %) 1.05 (0.73–1.52)
No 3005 (84.0 %) 221 (6.2 %) 353 (9.9 %)
Disability: legs, feet 931 (83.8 %) 82 (7.4 %) 1.18 (0.86–1.62) 98 (8.8 %) 0.95 (0.72–1.25)
No 2462 (83.6 %) 180 (6.1 %) 304 (10.3 %)
Disability: neck, back 598 (83.6 %) 48 (6.7 %) 0.96 (0.66–1.40) 69 (9.7 %) 0.93 (0.68–1.28)
No 2795 (83.6 %) 214 (6.4 %) 333 (10.0 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 65 (83.3 %) 6 (7.7 %) 0.82 (0.29–2.28) 7 (9.0 %) 0.75 (0.32–1.78)
No 3328 (83.6 %) 256 (6.4 %) 395 (9.9 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 283 (84.5 %) 15 (4.5 %) 0.78 (0.45–1.37) 37 (11.0 %) 1.11 (0.74–1.66)
No 3110 (83.6 %) 247 (6.6 %) 365 (9.8 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 192 (80.3 %) 16 (6.7 %) 0.88 (0.46–1.70) 31 (13.0 %) 1.15 (0.70–1.88)
No 3201 (83.8 %) 246 (6.4 %) 371 (9.7 %)
Some other health problem or disability 432 (82.4 %) 34 (6.5 %) 0.98 (0.65–1.49) 58 (11.1 %) 0.99 (0.71–1.40)
No 2961 (83.8 %) 228 (6.5 %) 344 (9.7 %)
Arthritis 987 (83.2 %) 78 (6.6 %) 1.27 (0.92–1.75) 121 (10.2 %) 1.32 (1.01–1.74)
No 2406 (83.8 %) 184 (6.4 %) 281 (9.8 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 10.

Associations between health conditions and perception on local schools in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 6292, 44.9 %) Neutral (n = 7400, 52.8 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 325, 2.3 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 11 (26.2 %) 31 (73.8 %) 1.82 (0.87–3.80) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1493 (37.2 %) 2433 (60.6 %) 88 (2.2 %)
Chest/breathing problem 263 (35.9 %) 453 (61.8 %) 1.00 (0.83–1.21) 17 (2.3 %) 1.11 (0.60–2.02)
No 1241 (37.4 %) 2011 (60.5 %) 71 (2.1 %)
Diabetes 183 (37.3 %) 302 (61.5 %) 0.87 (0.69–1.08) 6 (1.2 %) 0.47 (0.17–1.31)
No 1321 (37.1 %) 2162 (60.7 %) 82 (2.3 %)
Difficulty hearing 101 (30.8 %) 221 (67.4 %) 1.17 (0.88–1.55) 6 (1.8 %) 1.43 (0.59–3.47)
No 1403 (37.6 %) 2243 (60.2 %) 82 (2.2 %)
Difficulty seeing 90 (27.7 %) 229 (70.5 %) 1.49 (1.11–1.98) 6 (1.9 %) 0.98 (0.35–2.79)
No 1414 (37.9 %) 2235 (59.9 %) 82 (2.2 %)
Dyslexia 6 (19.4 %) 23 (74.2 %) 3.91 (1.42–10.77) 2 (6.5 %) 5.37 (0.98–29.40)
No 1498 (37.2 %) 2441 (60.7 %) 86 (2.1 %)
Epilepsy 35 (34.7 %) 60 (59.4 %) 1.26 (0.77–2.05) 6 (5.9 %) 2.59 (0.95–7.08)
No 1469 (37.1 %) 2404 (60.8 %) 82 (2.1 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 503 (36.5 %) 855 (62.0 %) 0.82 (0.70–0.96) 22 (1.6 %) 0.79 (0.45–1.38)
No 101 (37.4 %) 1609 (60.1 %) 66 (2.5 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 10 (33.3 %) 20 (66.7 %) 1.53 (0.61–3.83) 0 (0 %) N/a
No 1494 (37.1 %) 2444 (60.7 %) 88 (2.2 %)
Mental health problem 177 (40.0 %) 252 (56.9 %) 1.40 (1.09–1.81) 14 (3.2 %) 0.70 (0.34–1.36)
No 1327 (36.7 %) 2212 (61.2 %) 74 (2.1 %)
Disability: arms, hands 175 (36.6 %) 288 (60.3 %) 1.05 (0.83–1.32) 15 (3.1 %) 1.81 (0.98–3.35)
No 1329 (37.1 %) 2176 (60.8 %) 73 (2.0 %)
Disability: legs, feet 386 (34.7 %) 694 (62.5 %) 1.04 (0.88–1.23) 31 (2.8 %) 2.03 (1.24–3.32)
No 1118 (38.0 %) 1770 (60.1 %) 57 (1.9 %)
Disability: neck, back 279 (39.0 %) 411 (57.5 %) 0.94 (0.78–1.14) 25 (3.5 %) 1.91 (0.95–2.73)
No 1225 (36.7 %) 2053 (61.5 %) 63 (1.9 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 28 (35.9 %) 44 (56.4 %) 1.06 (0.63–1.78) 6 (7.7 %) 3.98 (1.55–10.23)
No 1476 (37.1 %) 2420 (60.8 %) 82 (2.1 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 128 (38.2 %) 197 (58.8 %) 0.96 (0.74–1.25) 10 (3.0 %) 1.36 (0.65–2.83)
No 1376 (37.0 %) 2267 (60.9 %) 78 (2.1 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 84 (35.2 %) 149 (62.3 %) 1.11 (0.81–1.54) 6 (2.5 %) 1.16 (0.45–3.02)
No 1420 (37.2 %) 2315 (60.7 %) 82 (2.2 %)
Some other health problem or disability 212 (40.5 %) 296 (56.6 %) 0.80 (0.65–0.99) 15 (2.9 %) 1.07 (0.57–2.00)
No 1292 (36.6 %) 2168 (61.4 %) 73 (2.1 %)
Arthritis 417 (35.2 %) 742 (62.6 %) 0.95 (0.80–1.11) 26 (2.2 %) 1.30 (0.76–2.21)
No 1087 (37.9 %) 1722 (60.0 %) 62 (2.2 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 11.

Associations between health conditions and perception on public transportation in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 8697, 62.1 %) Neutral (n = 3561, 25.4 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 1759, 12.6 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 26 (61.9 %) 13 (31.0 %) 1.56 (0.78–3.14) 3 (7.1 %) 0.71 (0.21–2.40)
No 2508 (62.5 %) 1027 (25.6 %) 479 (11.9 %)
Chest/breathing problem 463 (63.2 %) 185 (25.2 %) 0.93 (0.75–1.15) 85 (11.6 %) 0.92 (0.69–1.23)
No 2071 (62.3 %) 855 (25.7 %) 397 (12.0 %)
Diabetes 310 (63.1 %) 128 (26.1 %) 1.01 (0.79–1.30) 53 (10.8 %) 0.94 (0.66–1.33)
No 2224 (62.4 %) 912 (25.6 %) 429 (12.0 %)
Difficulty hearing 200 (61.0 %) 94 (28.7 %) 1.07 (0.80–1.44) 34 (10.4 %) 0.92 (0.59–1.43)
No 2334 (62.6 %) 946 (25.4 %) 448 (12.0 %)
Difficulty seeing 198 (60.9 %) 91 (28.0 %) 1.14 (0.85–1.52) 36 (11.1 %) 0.98 (0.64–1.51)
No 2336 (62.6 %) 949 (25.4 %) 446 (12.0 %)
Dyslexia 13 (41.9 %) 7 (22.6 %) 1.35 (0.46–3.92) 11 (35.5 %) 3.13 (1.27–7.73)
No 2521 (62.6 %) 1033 (25.7 %) 471 (11.7 %)
Epilepsy 59 (58.4 %) 29 (28.7 %) 1.39 (0.83–2.33) 13 (12.9 %) 0.93 (0.46–1.88)
No 2475 (62.6 %) 1011 (25.6 %) 469 (11.9 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 878 (63.6 %) 360 (26.1 %) 0.96 (0.81–1.14) 142 (10.3 %) 0.86 (0.67–1.11)
No 1656 (61.9 %) 680 (25.4 %) 340 (12.7 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 19 (63.3 %) 7 (23.3 %) 1.27 (0.44–3.64) 4 (13.3 %) 0.92 (0.26–3.33)
No 2515 (62.5 %) 1033 (25.7 %) 478 (11.9 %)
Mental health problem 284 (64.1 %) 96 (21.7 %) 1.10 (0.82–1.48) 63 (14.2 %) 0.81 (0.57–1.15)
No 2250 (62.3 %) 944 (26.1 %) 419 (11.6 %)
Disability: arms, hands 268 (56.1 %) 163 (34.1 %) 1.55 (1.22–1.97) 47 (9.8 %) 0.82 (0.56–1.20)
No 2266 (63.3 %) 877 (24.5 %) 435 (12.2 %)
Disability: legs, feet 612 (55.1 %) 381 (34.3 %) 1.74 (1.46–2.08) 118 (10.6 %) 1.02 (0.79–1.32)
No 1922 (65.3 %) 659 (22.4 %) 364 (12.4 %)
Disability: neck, back 417 (58.3 %) 201 (28.1 %) 1.24 (1.01–1.53) 97 (13.6 %) 1.14 (0.86–1.51)
No 2117 (63.4 %) 839 (25.1 %) 385 (11.5 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 52 (66.7 %) 19 (24.4 %) 0.95 (0.54–1.67) 7 (9.0 %) 0.73 (0.32–1.63)
No 2482 (62.4 %) 1021 (25.7 %) 475 (11.9 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 206 (61.5 %) 92 (27.5 %) 1.14 (0.86–1.52) 37 (11.0 %) 0.86 (0.57–1.29)
No 2328 (62.6 %) 948 (25.5 %) 445 (12.0 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 131 (54.8 %) 80 (33.5 %) 1.47 (1.05–2.06) 28 (11.7 %) 1.25 (0.79–1.99)
No 2403 (63.0 %) 960 (25.2 %) 454 (11.9 %)
Some other health problem or disability 318 (60.8 %) 137 (26.2 %) 0.98 (0.77–1.25) 68 (13.0 %) 0.99 (0.72–1.35)
No 2216 (62.7 %) 903 (25.6 %) 414 (11.7 %)
Arthritis 721 (60.8 %) 340 (28.7 %) 1.09 (0.92–1.31) 124 (10.5 %) 0.98 (0.76–1.27)
No 1813 (63.2 %) 700 (24.4 %) 358 (12.5 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

Table 12.

Associations between health conditions and perception on street cleaning in Scottish adults aged 16–80

Satisfaction (n = 9650, 68.8 %) Neutral (n = 2076, 14.8 %) RRR (95 % CI) Dissatisfaction (n = 2291, 16.3 %) RRR (95 % CI)
Speech impairment 28 (66.7 %) 7 (16.7 %) 1.24 (0.51–3.05) 7 (16.7 %) 0.93 (0.38–2.30)
No 2761 (68.8 %) 553 (13.8 %) 700 (17.4 %)
Chest/breathing problem 523 (71.4 %) 84 (11.5 %) 0.72 (0.54–0.96) 126 (17.2 %) 0.99 (0.78–1.26)
No 2266 (68.2 %) 476 (14.3 %) 581 (17.5 %)
Diabetes 332 (67.6 %) 69 (14.1 %) 1.04 (0.76–1.42) 90 (18.3 %) 1.05 (0.78–1.39)
No 2457 (68.9 %) 491 (13.8 %) 617 (17.3 %)
Difficulty hearing 222 (67.7 %) 51 (15.6 %) 1.14 (0.79–1.65) 55 (16.8 %) 1.11 (0.79–1.57)
No 2567 (68.9 %) 509 (13.7 %) 652 (17.5 %)
Difficulty seeing 221 (68.0 %) 47 (14.5 %) 1.14 (0.79–1.64) 57 (17.5 %) 1.04 (0.73–1.47)
No 2568 (68.8 %) 513 (13.8 %) 650 (17.4 %)
Dyslexia 19 (61.3 %) 3 (9.7 %) 0.66 (0.15–2.90) 9 (29.0 %) 1.52 (0.61–3.77)
No 2770 (68.8 %) 557 (13.8 %) 698 (17.3 %)
Epilepsy 70 (69.3 %) 16 (15.8 %) 1.24 (0.67–2.31) 15 (14.9 %) 0.66 (0.33–1.32)
No 2719 (68.8 %) 544 (13.8 %) 692 (17.5 %)
Heart/circulatory problem 939 (68.1 %) 182 (13.2 %) 0.86 (0.68–1.08) 259 (18.8 %) 1.31 (1.07–1.60)
No 1850 (69.1 %) 378 (14.1 %) 448 (16.7 %)
Learning/behavioural problem 19 (63.3 %) 6 (20.0 %) 2.26 (0.79–6.51) 5 (16.7 %) 0.86 (0.24–3.11)
No 2770 (68.8 %) 554 (13.8 %) 702 (17.4 %)
Mental health problem 302 (68.2 %) 54 (12.2 %) 0.81 (0.55–1.19) 87 (19.6 %) 0.91 (0.66–1.24)
No 2487 (68.8 %) 506 (14.0 %) 620 (17.2 %)
Disability: arms, hands 312 (65.3 %) 74 (15.5 %) 1.17 (0.86–1.60) 92 (19.3 %) 1.15 (0.87–1.53)
No 2477 (69.2 %) 486 (13.6 %) 615 (17.2 %)
Disability: legs, feet 756 (68.1 %) 172 (15.5 %) 1.23 (0.98–1.54) 183 (16.5 %) 0.98 (0.80–1.22)
No 2033 (69.0 %) 388 (13.2 %) 524 (17.8 %)
Disability: neck, back 474 (66.3 %) 108 (15.1 %) 1.20 (0.92–1.55) 133 (18.6 %) 1.06 (0.83–1.34)
No 2315 (69.3 %) 452 (13.5 %) 574 (17.2 %)
Severe disfigurement, skin condition or allergies 58 (74.4 %) 11 (14.1 %) 1.01 (0.51–2.01) 9 (11.5 %) 0.59 (0.58–1.26)
No 2731 (68.7 %) 549 (13.8 %) 698 (17.6 %)
Severe stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 224 (66.9 %) 56 (16.7 %) 1.40 (1.00–1.96) 55 (16.4 %) 0.97 (0.69–1.37)
No 2565 (68.9 %) 504 (13.5 %) 562 (17.5 %)
Some other progressive disability or illness 163 (68.2 %) 34 (14.2 %) 1.07 (0.68–1.66) 42 (17.6 %) 1.05 (0.70–1.57)
No 2626 (68.8 %) 526 (13.8 %) 665 (17.4 %)
Some other health problem or disability 357 (68.3 %) 71 (13.6 %) 0.97 (0.71–1.31) 95 (18.2 %) 1.08 (0.83–1.41)
No 2432 (68.8 %) 489 (13.8 %) 612 (17.3 %)
Arthritis 799 (67.4 %) 161 (13.6 %) 0.98 (0.77–1.23) 225 (19.0 %) 1.11 (0.90–1.37)
No 1990 (69.3 %) 399 (13.9 %) 482 (16.8 %)

Adjusted for age and sex and ever harassment

In addition, people with vision (RRR, 1.80 (95 % CI, 1.02–3.19); P = 0.043) and legs (RRR, 1.69 (95 % CI, 1.18–2.42); P = 0.004) problem and possibly heart problem (RRR, 1.42 (95 % CI, 0.99–2.04); P = 0.056) were more dissatisfied with the community centres and facilities, compared with people without such health conditions (data now shown). People with vision (RRR, 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.02–1.80); P = 0.034) and neck (RRR, 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.11–1.66); P = 0.003) problem, other progressive illness (RRR, 1.43 (95 % CI, 1.03–2.00); P = 0.034), other disability (RRR, 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.01–1.81); P = 0.041) and possibly heart problem (RRR, 1.25 (95 % CI, 0.99–1.59); P = 0.059) were also more dissatisfied with the police service. Furthermore, people with vision (RRR, 1.43 (95 % CI, 1.10–1.85); P = 0.007) problem were dissatisfied with the local fire service.

Discussion

Waste management

Health hazards from waste management have been studied among waste management workers (Sigsgaard 1999). During sorting and recycling, there could be bioaerosol exposure (e.g. airborne bacteria, endotoxin etc.) revealed (Poulsen et al. 1995). The typical health risks are gastrointestinal symptoms, respiratory problems and irritation of the eyes and skin. In the present study, dissatisfaction among people with arthritis, chest or hearing problems was also observed. This might be as a result of local improper waste management leading to the impact on these people with the exciting health conditions or they have found it difficult/challenging for them to do refuse collection in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find out the real cause from the current limited dataset.

Public transportation

Although the relationship of traffic (congestion) and mental health could have been less studied, compared with other neighbourhood risks such as air quality, crime, noise etc., a few community studies have observed that transport team members had higher incident mental health episodes while there was observed an association between high vehicle traffic density in residential area and reduced quality of life and mental health in women across several countries as well (Tvaryanas and Maupin 2014; Gundersen et al. 2013; Yamazaki et al. 2005). Primary school children could have suffered from transportation noise resulting in neuro-behavioural conditions (van Kempen et al. 2010). People with dyslexia could have been further impacted by the lack of clear aid in the public space leading to long time frustration in streets (Bentzen et al. 2007; Brachacki et al. 1995) or the loss of driving ability to adapt the rapid changing environments on roads (Sigmundsson 2005; Groeger and Maguire 1996). Following these observations and the results from the present study, a universal public transportation development plan to include the needs of people with dyslexia could be suggested.

Street cleaning

It has been observed the links between air quality and health conditions such as heart disease, asthma and cancer (Ernst et al. 2003; Evans Kantrowitz 2002), in particular in populations with specific occupations (Biggi et al. 2008). In addition to regulating chemical emission from industry or buildings, a recent trial on intense street cleaning was found to be effective to lessen pollutants in public space and consequently health risk effects (Amato et al. 2010). Current urban design could have still ignored the complete consideration of well-functioning neighbourhoods (Jackson 2003). Such investment should therefore be put into environmental and social policies as to delay or prevent health problems that might deteriorate human capital in the long run.

Strengths and limitations

The present study has a number of strengths. Firstly, it was conducted in a representative study sample (country-wide and population-based) and in recent years. Secondly, it was also the first time to analyse how people with long-term standing illness and disability could perceive their living neighbourhoods in large study sample in Scotland. However, there are also a few limitations worthy of being noted. First, the list of items in assessing satisfaction toward neighbourhood facilities was not standardised. Future studies including epidemiologists, architects and civil engineers working together from developing a complete questionnaire to managing built environment toward the universal design would be suggested. Second, although there were some significant associations observed, the statistical modelling could still have been suffering from small number of cases in some sub-scales. Third, the causality cannot be established due to the cross-sectional study design in nature. Taken together, future research retaining the strengths and overcoming these limitations mentioned above with a long-term monitoring would be suggested.

Directions for future research, practice and policy

In sum, people with heart, chest, skin, digestive, musculoskeletal, vision, learning, speech and mental disorders and dyslexia were more dissatisfied with their current neighbourhood environments. For future research, studies moving from etiological factors to problematic neighbourhood management and restoration in a well-established surveillance for both urban and town reviving would be recommended in order to ensure the neighbourhood equality for all residents. For clinical practice, upgrading neighbourhood planning to tackle social environment injustice would be suggested in order to have a balanced focus on both places and people (Shiue 2016). For policy making, regular monitoring on the neighbourhood condition for proper maintenance and preservation might be necessary in order to ensure that the health and well-being of all residents could be maintained and optimised and no one would be left behind to amount health and social care services use exceedingly due to the vicious circle.

References

  1. Amato F, Nava S, Lucarelli F, Querol X, Alastuey A, Baldadano JM, Pandolfi MA. Comprehensive assessment of PM emissions from paved roads: real-world emission factors and intense street cleaning trials. Sci Total Environ. 2010;408:4309–4318. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentzen BL, Crandall WF, Myers L. Wayfinding system for transportation services: remote infrared audible signage for transit stations, surface transit, and intersections. J Transportation Res Board. 1671;1999:19–26. [Google Scholar]
  3. Biggi N, Consonni D, Galluzzo V, Sogliani M, Costa G. Metabolic syndrome in permanent night workers. Chronobiol Int. 2008;25:443–454. doi: 10.1080/07420520802114193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowling A, Farquhar M, Grundy E, Formby J. Changes in life satisfaction over a two and a half year period among very elderly people living in London. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36:641–655. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90061-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brachacki GW, Nicolson RI, Fawcett AJ (1995) Impaired recognition of traffic signs in adults with dyslexia. J Learn Disabil 28:297–301 [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Chapman NJ, Beaudet M. Environmental predictors of well-being for at-risk older adults in a mid-sized city. J Gerontol. 1983;38:237–244. doi: 10.1093/geronj/38.2.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ernst M, Corless J, Greene-Roesel R. Clearing the air: public health threats from cars and heavy duty vehicles—why we need to protect federal clean air laws. Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2003.
  8. Evans GW, Kantrowitz E. Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:303–331. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.112001.112349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Groeger JA, Maguire RL. Dyslexia and driving: controlled processing of control skills? In: Behavioural Research in Road Safety VI. Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory, 109–116.
  10. Gundersen H, Magerøy N, Moen BE, Bråtveit M. Traffic density in area of residence is associated with health-related quality of life in women, the community-based Hordaland health study. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2013;68:153–160. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2012.676103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jackson LE. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;64:191–200. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00230-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Poulsen OM1, Breum NO, Ebbehøj N, Hansen AM, Ivens UI, van Lelieveld D, Malmros P, Matthiasen L, Nielsen BH, Nielsen EM, Schibyea B, Skova T, Stenbaeka EI, Wilkinsa KC. Sorting and recycling of domestic waste. Review of occupational health problems and their possible causes. Sci Total Environ. 1995;168:33–56. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(95)04521-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Reitzel LR, Nguyen N, Zafereo ME, Li G, Wei Q, Sturgis EM. Neighborhood deprivation and clinical outcomes among head and neck cancer patients. Health Place. 2012;18:861–868. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Shiue I. Neighborhood epidemiological monitoring and adult mental health: European quality of life survey, 2007–2012. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2014 doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3818-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shiue I. Prevalence and psychiatric correlates of neighbourhood satisfaction and its impact on adolescent behaviours: UK understanding society cohort, 2011–2012. Environ Res. 2014;134C:390–395. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.08.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shiue I. Future urban design strategies for health and wellbeing: proposal of DIDID action plan and design mapping. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 2016;14:104–114. doi: 10.1108/JEDT-04-2014-0021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sigmundsson H. Do visual processing deficits cause problem on response time task for dyslexics? Brain Cogn. 2005;58:213–216. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sigsgaard T. Health hazards to waste management workers in Denmark. Schriftenr Ver Wasser Boden Lufthyg. 1999;104:563–568. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Tvaryanas AP, Maupin GM. Risk of incident mental health conditions among critical care air transport team members. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014;85:30–38. doi: 10.3357/ASEM.3782.2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. van Kempen E, van Kamp I, Lebret E, Lammers J, Emmen H, Stansfeld S (2010) Neurobehavioral effects of transportation noise in primary schoolchildren: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health:9:25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Warr D, Feldman P, Tacticos T, Kelaher M. Sources of stress in impoverished neighbourhoods: insights into links between neighbourhood environments and health. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2009;33:25–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Yamazaki S, Sokejima S, Nitta H, Nakayama T, Fukuhara S. Living close to automobile traffic and quality of life in Japan: a population-based survey. Int J Environ Health Res. 2005;15:1–9. doi: 10.1080/09603120400018709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES