Table 1 |
||||
|
Spatial accessibility to fast-food restaurants and fast-food opportunities by neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, using measures of proximity and coverage1,2 |
||||
|
All Deprivation (n = 101) |
Low Deprivation (n = 26) |
Medium Deprivation (n = 48) |
High Deprivation (n = 27) |
|
|
|
||||
|
SPATIAL ACCESSIBILITY |
||||
|
Proximity, mi |
||||
|
Fast-food restaurant |
6.2 ± 5.5 (4.5) |
9.1 ± 5.0 (9.5) |
7.0 ± 5.3 (6.1) |
2.1 ± 3.7 (0.7)¶ |
|
Fast-food opportunity |
3.3 ± 3.0 (2.7) |
5.2 ± 3.6 (4.3) |
3.5 ± 2.4 (3.7) |
1.0 ± 1.6 (0.6)¶ |
|
Healthier entrée (≥1) |
3.7 ± 3.3 (4.3) |
5.5 ± 3.6 (4.7) |
4.2 ± 3.0 (3.8) |
1.1 ± 1.5 (0.6) ¶ |
|
Healthier entrées |
5.7 ± 5.1 (4.3) |
7.9 ± 4.9 (7.6) |
6.7 ± 4.9 (6.3) |
1.8 ± 3.5 (0.7)¶ |
|
Healthier side dishes |
7.3 ± 3.3 (6.5) |
10.7 ± 7.8 (4.7) |
8.4 ± 4.9 (3.8) |
2.3 ± 3.3 (0.6)¶ |
|
Coverage - 1 mi |
||||
|
Fast-food restaurant |
1.6 ± 3.3 (0) |
0.7 ± 3.5 (0) |
1.2 ± 3.4 (0) |
3.0 ± 2.3 (3)¶ |
|
Fast-food opportunity |
3.2 ± 5.7 (0) |
1.1 ± 5.5 (0) |
2.3 ± 5.4 (0) |
7.0 ± 4.7 (7)¶ |
|
Healthier entrée (≥1) |
2.5 ± 4.7 (0) |
1.0 ± 4.9 (0) |
1.8 ± 4.6 (0) |
5.1 ± 3.5 (5)¶ |
|
Healthier entrées |
1.4 ± 2.5 (0) |
0.5 ± 2.3 (0) |
0.9 ± 2.4 (0) |
3.0 ± 2.2 (3)¶ |
|
Healthier side dishes |
0.4 ± 0.9 (0) |
0.4 ± 0.2 (0) |
0.2 ± 0.8 (0) |
1.2 ± 1.0 (1)¶ |
|
Coverage - 3 mi |
||||
|
Fast-food restaurant |
5.0 ± 8.4 (0) |
2.3 ± 6.4 (0) |
3.5 ± 7.2 (0) |
10.4 ± 9.7 (9)¶ |
|
Fast-food opportunity |
9.9 ± 15.5 (1) |
4.6 ± 11.6 (0.5) |
7.0 ± 13.5 (1) |
20.2 ± 17.8 (14)¶ |
|
Healthier entrée (≥1) |
7.7 ± 12.5 (1) |
3.6 ± 9.4 (0) |
5.6 ± 10.8 (0.5) |
15.6 ± 14.6 (10)¶ |
|
Healthier entrées |
4.2 ± 6.4 (0) |
1.8 ± 4.8 (0) |
2.9 ± 5.6 (0) |
8.7 ± 7.0 (6)¶ |
|
Healthier side dishes |
1.4 ± 2.0 (0) |
0.6 ± 1.3 (0) |
0.9 ± 1.7 (0) |
3.1 ± 2.2 (3)¶ |
|
Coverage - 5 mi |
||||
|
Fast-food restaurant |
6.1 ± 9.1 (1) |
4.0 ± 8.8 (0) |
4.8 ± 8.2 (0) |
10.6 ± 9.6 (9)¶ |
|
Fast-food opportunity |
12.7 ± 17.2 (3) |
8.5 ± 16.6 (1) |
10.0 ± 15.4 (2) |
21.4 ± 18.3 (15)¶ |
|
Healthier entrée (≥1) |
9.8 ± 13.8 (3) |
6.3 ± 13.3 (1) |
8.0 ± 12.4 (1.5) |
16.4 ± 14.8 (10)¶ |
|
Healthier entrées |
5.3 ± 7.1 (1) |
3.3 ± 6.8 (0) |
4.2 ± 6.5 (0) |
9.3 ± 7.2 (7)¶ |
|
Healthier side dishes |
1.7 ± 2.2 (0) |
1.0 ± 1.8 (0) |
1.2 ± 2.0 (0) |
3.2 ± 2.1 (4)¶ |
|
|
||||
|
1Fast-food opportunities include fast-food restaurants, traditional food stores (supercenters, supermarkets, grocery stores), and convenience stores that market fast food lunch/dinner entrées and/or side dishes. 2 Values calculated for each of the 101 CBG (census block group) in the study area. Proximity determined by the network distance from each population-weighted CBG centroid to the nearest fast-food only restaurant or fast-food opportunity; coverage is determined by the number of fast-food restaurants or fast-food opportunities within a specific network-based distance. Distances (proximity), numbers (coverage) are shown as mean ± standard deviation (median) overall and by category of deprivation. Healthier entrée (≥1) = at least one lunch/dinner entrée with a healthier option; Healthier entrées = at least 2 lunch/dinner entrées with a healthier option; Healthier side dishes = at least 2 side dishes with a healthier option. Level of statistical significance for test for trend across ordered groups of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation: ‡p < 0.05 §p < 0.01 ¶p < 0.001 |
||||
|
Sharkey et al. Nutrition Journal 2011 10:10 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-10-10 |
||||
