Skip to main content

Table 2 Associations of English local government area characteristics and planning policy status, estimated using unadjusted and adjusted multinomial logistic regression models (n = 325)

From: Correlates of English local government use of the planning system to regulate hot food takeaway outlets: a cross-sectional analysis

 

Specific Non-health Planning Policy Status

Specific Health Planning Policy Status

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Unadjusted

Adjusted

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Relative Deprivation Score a

 Q1, least deprived (5.00–12.85)

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

 Q2 (12.86–18.01)

0.80

0.40, 1.60

–

–

2.76

0.69, 11.01

–

–

 Q3 (18.02–25.23)

1.40

0.71, 2.73

–

–

4.95

1.29, 18.91

–

–

 Q4, most deprived (25.24–41.99)

4.26

1.97, 9.19

–

–

40.80

10.99, 151.47

–

–

Political Party Majority b, c

 No Overall Control

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

 Labour

2.83

1.30, 6.13

2.07

0.92, 4.68

8.80

3.33, 23.29

5.17

1.84, 14.49

 Conservative

0.77

0.39, 1.49

0.97

0.47, 2.00

0.59

0.21, 1.64

1.23

0.40, 3.79

 Liberal Democrat

2.84

1.00, 8.02

3.15

1.07, 9.31

0.62

0.67, 5.82

0.90

0.91, 9.01

Rural/urban Status d

 Predominantly rural

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

ref

–

 Urban with significant rural

0.82

0.33, 1.99

0.76

0.31, 1.89

0.25

0.02, 2.21

0.25

0.02, 2.25

 Predominantly urban

6.69

3.53, 12.68

5.63

2.88, 11.00

11.33

4.49, 28.54

5.51

2.05, 14.87

Statistical Comparator Policy Status e, f

 No, or Non-specific

0.97

0.96, 0.98

0.97

0.96, 0.98

0.94

0.92, 0.95

0.95

0.93, 0.97

 Specific Non-health

1.01

1.01, 1.05

1.02

1.00, 1.04

1.04

1.02, 1.06

1.00

0.98, 1.03

 Specific Health

1.03

1.01, 1.05

1.02

1.00, 1.04

1.07

1.05, 1.09

1.05

1.03, 1.07

Geographical Neighbour Policy Status e, g

 No, or Non-specific

0.98

0.97, 0.98

0.98

0.97, 0.99

0.95

0.93, 0.96

0.95

0.94, 0.97

 Specific Non-health

1.01

1.00, 1.02

1.01

1.00, 1.02

1.00

0.99, 1.02

1.00

0.99, 1.02

 Specific Health

1.02

1.00, 1.03

1.01

1.00, 1.03

1.05

1.04, 1.07

1.05

1.03, 1.06

  1. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs relative to reference group (ref). aRelative Deprivation Score = measure of local deprivation. bFor 'Political Party Majority', 'Independent and other' were not included in analysis due to low representation (n = 4). Analytic sample for this model, n = 321. cNo Overall Control = a political party did not emerge as an outright winner during local elections. d Predominantly rural = ≥50% of the population live in rural areas. Urban with significant rural = mostly urban areas with 26 to 49% of the population living in rural areas. Predominantly urban = ≥74% of the population live in urban areas. eORs and 95% CIs per one percentage point increase in the percentage of comparators with ‘No, or Non-specific’, ‘Specific Non-health’ or ‘Specific Health’ planning policy in place. fFor each local government area, CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) provide 15 nearest statistical comparators based on a range of metrics, independent of geographical location. gGeographical neighbours are local government areas that share a part of their boundary