Table 4.

Associations between neighbourhood characteristics and loneliness in the study sample†,‡

	Model 1§		Model 2¶		Model 3**
	Medium level of loneliness OR (95% CI)	High level of loneliness OR (95% CI)	Medium level of loneliness OR (95% CI)	High level of loneliness OR (95% CI)	Medium level of loneliness OR (95% CI)	High level of loneliness OR (95% CI)
Social neighbourhood characteristics
Percentage of low educated residents	1.02 (1.00–1.03)	1.02 (1.00–1.03)	1.01 (1.00–1.03)	1.01 (0.99–1.03)	1.01 (1.00–1.03)	1.01 (0.99–1.03)
Average income in €1000,-	0.98 (0.96–1.00)	0.96 (0.94–0.98)	0.99 (0.96–1.01)	0.98 (0.96–1.00)	0.98 (0.95–1.00)	0.98 (0.96–1.01)
Percentage of social security beneficiaries	1.04 (0.96–1.12)	1.12 (1.04–1.21)	1.01 (0.94–1.10)	1.06 (0.98–1.14)	1.06 (0.97–1.16)	1.06 (0.97–1.16)
Percentage of unoccupied dwellings	0.97 (0.94–1.01)	0.98 (0.95–1.02)	0.97 (0.94–1.01)	0.98 (0.95–1.02)	0.96 (0.93–1.00)	0.99 (0.95–1.02)
Number of criminal offences per 1000 residents	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	1.00 (1.00–1.00)	1.00 (1.00–1.00)
Physical neighbourhood characteristic
Land use mix	0.59 (0.20–1.75)	0.64 (0.22–1.89)	0.59 (0.20–1.76)	0.78 (0.26–2.36)	0.54 (0.18–1.67)	0.67 (0.21–2.11)

†The reference category of the outcome measure is low level of loneliness.

‡In bold: p<0.05.

§In Model 1, the associations are adjusted for the individual-level confounders age, sex and study.

¶In Model 2, the associations are additionally adjusted for the individual-level confounders partner status, educational level and household income.

**In Model 3, the associations are additionally adjusted for the area-level confounder population density.