Table 4.
Adjusted prevalence ratios* for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevalence corresponding to a difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles in neighborhood environments, 2000–2004.
| †Survey-based social environments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social cohesion | Violence | Problems | ||||
| Model No. | PR(95% CI) | P value | PR(95% CI) | P value | PR(95% CI) | P value |
| Model 1 | 0.92(0.86, 0.98) | 0.007 | 1.10(1.03, 1.18) | 0.006 | 1.16(1.07, 1.25) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 0.93(0.86, 0.99) | 0.032 | 1.10(1.02, 1.18) | 0.013 | 1.15(1.06, 1.25) | 0.001 |
| Model 3 | 0.92(0.86, 0.99) | 0.027 | 1.10(1.02, 1.18) | 0.015 | 1.15(1.06, 1.25) | 0.001 |
| Model 4 | 0.93(0.87, 1.00) | 0.041 | 1.09(1.01, 1.17) | 0.036 | 1.14(1.05, 1.24) | 0.002 |
| Model 5 | 0.94(0.88, 1.01) | 0.083 | 1.07(0.99, 1.15) | 0.084 | 1.12(1.03, 1.21) | 0.008 |
| ‡GIS-based physical environments | ||||||
| Favorable food stores | Unfavorable food stores | Physical activity resources | ||||
| Model No. | PR(95% CI) | P value | PR(95% CI) | P value | PR(95% CI) | P value |
| Model 1 | 1.03(0.98, 1.09) | 0.224 | 1.07(0.99,1.17) | 0.087 | 1.03 (0.98, 1.09) | 0.185 |
| Model 2 | 1.03(0.98, 1.09) | 0.266 | 1.07(0.99,1.17) | 0.087 | 1.04 (0.98, 1.09) | 0.173 |
| Model 3 | 1.03(0.98, 1.09) | 0.248 | 1.08(0.99,1.17) | 0.080 | 1.04 (0.98, 1.09) | 0.169 |
| Model 4 | 1.03(0.98, 1.09) | 0.230 | 1.07(0.99,1.16) | 0.099 | 1.03 (0.98, 1.09) | 0.203 |
| Model 5 | 1.01(0.96, 1.07) | 0.715 | 1.07(0.99,1.16) | 0.083 | 1.04 (0.99, 1.10) | 0.136 |
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index, CI: confidence interval, PR: Prevalence ratio, GIS: Geographic Information Systems, JHS: Jackson Heart Study.
Adjusted PRs for baseline characteristics and were estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) accounting for nesting of participants within census tract-level.
Survey-based neighborhood environments were collected from JHS participants and aggregated to census tracts using empirical Bayes estimation. Item responses had a possible range of 1 to 4; higher scores indicate better social cohesion, and higher violence and problems.
GIS-based densities of favorable and unfavorable food stores and physical activity resources were derived using standard industrial classification codes from commercial listings of establishments obtained from National Establishment Time-Series database from Walls & Associates. The densities were calculated for a 1-mile buffer around each of JHS participant’s residential address.
Model 1: Age, sex, and family history of diabetes
Model 2: Model 1 + income, and educational level
Model 3: Model 2 + alcohol intake, and smoking status
Model 4: Model 3 + physical activity level, and diet
Model 5: Model 4 + BMI