Table 3.
Linear regression estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between perceived and extrinsic neighborhood measures and birth outcomes.
| Gestational age (weeks) | Birthweight z-scores | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted1 | Unadjusted | Adjusted1 | |||||||||
| N | Beta | 95% CI | N | Beta | 95% CI | N | Beta | 95% CI | N | Beta | 95% CI | |
| Extrinsic | ||||||||||||
| ICE Income | ||||||||||||
| Low (Most Disadvantaged) | 241 | –0.49 | (–0.84, –0.15) | 221 | –0.14 | (–0.53, 0.25) | 239 | 0.11 | (–0.07, 0.29) | 219 | 0.19 | (–0.01, 0.38) |
| Medium | 255 | –0.21 | (–0.57, 0.14) | 232 | 0.02 | (–0.32, 0.35) | 253 | 0.02 | (–0.15, 0.19) | 230 | 0.06 | (–0.11, 0.23) |
| High (Least Disadvantaged) | 266 | Ref | Ref | 245 | Ref | Ref | 263 | Ref | Ref | 242 | Ref | Ref |
| Area Deprivation Index | ||||||||||||
| Low (Least Disadvantaged) | 338 | Ref | Ref | 310 | Ref | Ref | 332 | Ref | Ref | 304 | Ref | Ref |
| Medium | 176 | –0.46 | (–0.85, –0.07) | 154 | –0.32 | (–0.67, 0.03) | 176 | –0.02 | (–0.19, 0.15) | 154 | 0.01 | (–0.17, 0.18) |
| High (Most Disadvantaged) | 243 | –0.38 | (–0.71, –0.06) | 231 | –0.35 | (–0.67, –0.02) | 242 | –0.04 | (–0.21, 0.13) | 230 | –0.05 | (–0.23, 0.14) |
| Urban displacement | ||||||||||||
| Exclusive | 228 | Ref | Ref | 211 | Ref | Ref | 225 | Ref | Ref | 208 | Ref | Ref |
| Stable | 350 | 0.25 | (–0.11, 0.61) | 318 | 0.32 | (–0.02, 0.65) | 348 | 0.02 | (–0.14, 0.18) | 316 | 0.07 | (–0.09, 0.24) |
| Ongoing Gentrification | 168 | –0.2 | (–0.63, 0.24) | 156 | 0.19 | (–0.26, 0.64) | 166 | 0.1 | (–0.1, 0.3) | 154 | 0.22 | (–0.01, 0.44) |
| Perceived | ||||||||||||
| Poor neighborhood quality | ||||||||||||
| No | 511 | Ref | Ref | 486 | Ref | Ref | 509 | Ref | Ref | 484 | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 130 | –0.25 | (–0.61, 0.1) | 123 | –0.1 | (–0.46, 0.27) | 128 | 0.14 | (–0.06, 0.33) | 121 | 0.21 | (0.01, 0.42) |
| Dissatisfied with neighborhood | ||||||||||||
| No | 640 | Ref | Ref | 605 | Ref | Ref | 635 | Ref | Ref | 600 | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 89 | –0.33 | (–0.75, 0.09) | 87 | 0.05 | (–0.39, 0.5) | 87 | 0.16 | (–0.06, 0.38) | 85 | 0.22 | (–0.02, 0.45) |
| Disorderly neighborhood | ||||||||||||
| No | 685 | Ref | Ref | 649 | Ref | Ref | 678 | Ref | Ref | 642 | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 45 | 0.2 | (–0.37, 0.78) | 43 | 0.43 | (–0.16, 1.01) | 45 | 0.11 | (–0.19, 0.41) | 43 | 0.18 | (–0.13, 0.49) |
| Unsafe neighborhood | ||||||||||||
| No | 628 | Ref | Ref | 594 | Ref | Ref | 622 | Ref | Ref | 588 | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 102 | –0.27 | (–0.67, 0.12) | 98 | –0.14 | (–0.55, 0.26) | 101 | 0.05 | (–0.15, 0.26) | 97 | 0.12 | (–0.1, 0.33) |
1Models adjusted for age, education, and marital status.
Perceived neighborhood quality is a composite measure of neighborhood dissatisfaction, disorderly neighborhood, unsafe neighborhood, and collective efficacy.