. 2019 Jul 13;15:100953. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100953

Table 3.

Adjusted prevalence ratios of diabetes and hypertension control in patient sample, Philadelphia, PA, 2016.

	Poor diabetes control			Poor hypertension control
	Model 1^a, ^b	Model 2^a, ^b	Model 3^a, ^b	Model 1^a, ^b	Model 2^a, ^b	Model 3^a, ^b
	PR (95% CI)	PR (95% CI)	PR (95% CI)	PR (95% CI)	PR (95% CI)	PR (95% CI)
Neighborhood socioeconomic status
Deprivation score^c	0.98 (0.84, 1.13)	0.97 (0.83, 1.13)	–	1.09 (1.02, 1.15)^⁎⁎	1.06 (1.00, 1.12)^⁎	–
Percent poverty^c	1.04 (0.92, 1.17)	1.02 (0.89, 1.15)	–	1.00 (0.95, 1.06)	1.02 (0.96, 1.08)	–
Percent bachelor's degree^c	1.04 (0.90, 1.20)	1.05 (0.91, 1.22)	–	0.92 (0.87, 0.98)^⁎⁎	0.95 (0.89, 1.01)^⁎	–

Neighborhood social environment
Violent crime^c	0.98 (0.88, 1.09)	0.96 (0.86, 1.07)	0.97 (0.86, 1.08)	0.99 (0.94, 1.04)	0.98 (0.93, 1.03)	0.97 (0.92, 1.02)
Perceived safety^c	1.00 (0.89, 1.13)	1.02 (0.90, 1.15)	1.01 (0.89, 1.15)	1.02 (0.97, 1.08)	1.01 (0.96, 1.07)	1.02 (0.96, 1.08)
Social capital^c	1.00 (0.90, 1.11)	1.01 (0.91, 1.12)	1.00 (0.89, 1.12)	0.98 (0.92, 1.04)	1.00 (0.94, 1.06)	1.01 (0.95, 1.07)
High segregation^d	1.27 (1.02, 1.57)^⁎⁎	1.21 (0.96, 1.53)^⁎	1.25 (0.99, 1.58)^⁎	1.22 (1.12, 1.33)^⁎⁎	1.14 (1.03, 1.25)^⁎⁎	1.12 (1.01, 1.24)^⁎⁎

Neighborhood walkability
Percent retail land use^c	0.87 (0.77, 0.99)^⁎⁎	0.88 (0.80, 0.97)^⁎⁎	0.88 (0.80, 0.98)^⁎⁎	0.96 (0.92, 1.00)^⁎	0.96 (0.92, 1.00)^⁎⁎	0.96 (0.92, 1.00)^⁎
Intersection density^c	0.94 (0.81, 1.09)	0.91 (0.78, 1.05)	0.90 (0.78, 1.04)	0.97 (0.91, 1.04)	1.01 (0.95, 1.09)	1.01 (0.94, 1.09)

^⁎⁎

p < .05.

^⁎

p < .10.

Generalized estimating equation (GEE) logbinomial model accounting for clustering by census tract.

Model 1 adjusted for age, sex, and insurance status. Model 2 = Model 1 + clinic site. Model 3 = Model 2 + neighborhood SES deprivation score.

Per standard deviation (see Table 1).

Getis-Ord G_i^⁎ z-score ≥ 1.96 for African American population.