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

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

	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)*

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 Referent category is lowest quartile.
*Statistically significant (p < 0.05)

ISSN: 1479-5868