Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the study population

From: The impact of area-based initiatives on physical activity trends in deprived areas; a quasi-experimental evaluation of the Dutch District Approach

  Total Deprived target districts Control groups
Rest of the Netherlands Other deprived districtsb Other deprived districts, same cityc
Numbers      
n 4-digit zipcodes 3502 83 3419 250 119
n adults in total 48401 1517 46884 4277 2389
n adults per half year (mean ± SD) 3025 ± 293 95 ± 16 2 930 ± 286 267 ± 26 149 ± 15
n adults per zipcode (mean ± SD) 14 ± 12 18 ± 8 14 ± 12 17 ± 11 20 ± 11
Characteristics a      
Age (mean ±  SD) 49.4 ± 16.9 48.1 + 17.9 49.4 + 16.9* 48.8 + 17.2 48.2 + 17.0
Gender (%)      
Men 47.7 46.1 47.8 46.0 45.6
Women 52.3 53.9 52.2 54.0 54.4
Household composition (%)    * * *
Partner/married with child (ren) 39.4 35.2 39.5 33.9 33.2
Partner/married without child (ren) 38.4 28.3 38.7 36.1 32.7
Single without child (ren) 16.9 25.4 16.6 23.0 26.2
Single with child (ren) 4.1 8.2 4.0 5.1 5.6
Other 1.2 2.8 1.1 1.9 2.3
Ethnicity (%)    * * *
Ethnic Dutch 87.8 66.1 88.5 80.5 77.2
Non-ethnic Dutch, western 7.1 9.7 7.1 9.4 10.6
Non-ethnic Dutch, non-western 3.4 19.1 2.8 7.1 8.8
Non-ethnic Dutch, origin unknown 1.2 3.3 1.1 1.8 2.2
Education (%)    * * *
Primary education 13.4 22.0 13.2 16.9 15.9
Secondary education: lower level 23.3 25.1 23.2 20.6 17.6
Secondary education: higher level 35.1 29.1 35.3 29.9 26.8
Tertiary education 26.3 21.9 26.4 30.3 37.0
Income (%)    * * *
First quintile (< €15037) 16.5 27.9 16.1 21.3 22.6
Second quintile (€15037 - €19000) 18.9 23.8 18.7 20.2 18.9
Third quintile (€19001 - €23317) 19.8 19.6 19.8 19.0 17.8
Fourth quintile (€23318 - €29746) 21.3 15.0 21.5 19.0 18.5
Fifth quintile (> €29746) 22.0 11.7 22.3 19.0 20.7
Physical activity (% active)      
Leisure-time walking 62.6 63.3 62.6 60.8 62.7
Leisure-time cycling 54.6 42.0 55.0* 49.5* 48.7*
Sports 43.0 36.7 43.2* 41.2* 42.9*
  1. *Differs significantly from deprived target districts.
  2. aPercentages may not add up to 100% due to the category ‘missings’ which has not been reported.
  3. bDistricts with levels of deprivation similar to that of the deprived target districts, but where the District Approach had not been introduced.
  4. cDistricts with levels of deprivation similar to that of the deprived target districts and that are situated in the same cities as the deprived target districts, but where the District Approach had not been introduced.
\