Skip to main content

Table 5 Crude associations between built environment factor scores and socioeconomic environment factor quartiles [coeff (95% CI)]1

From: Built and socioeconomic environments: patterning and associations with physical activity in U.S. adolescents

  Homogenous landscape Intensity (pay facilities) Intensity (public facilities) Connectivity (alpha)
Advantageous economic environment score quartile
12 0 0 0 0
2 -0.29 (-0.63, 0.04) 0.46 (0.28, 0.64)* 0.20 (0.02, 0.37)* -0.02 (-0.09, 0.05)
3 -0.50 (-0.86, -0.13)* 0.70 (0.46, 0.94)* 0.33 (0.11, 0.55)* -0.01 (-0.10, 0.07)
4 -0.63 (-1.01, -0.25)* 0.90 (0.63, 1.18)* 0.40 (0.19, 0.61)* -0.07 (-0.15, 0.00)
Disadvantageous social environment score quartile
12 0 0 0 0
2 0.10 (-0.18, 0.37) 0.29 (0.17, 0.40)* 0.31 (0.20, 0.42)* 0.08 (0.02, 0.15)*
3 -0.20 (-0.46, 0.05)* 0.62 (0.37, 0.87)* 0.57 (0.41, 0.73)* 0.06 (0.00, 0.12)*
4 -0.27 (-0.66, 0.12)* 1.25 (0.94, 1.55)* 1.33 (1.00, 1.66)* 0.09 (0.01, 0.16)*
  1. 1National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Wave I (1995-96), n = 18,294. Based on linear regression modeling each built environment factor from Table 3 (or street connectivity variable) as a function of quartiles of Advantageous economic and Disadvantageous social environment factor scores (Table 4).
  2. 2 Referent category is lowest quartile.
  3. *Statistically significant (p < 0.05)