Table 3

Association between 1-mile and 3-mile coverage of fast-food opportunities and area deprivation, using multivariate linear regression model

Model 1

Access (number of fast-food opportunities within 1 network mile)


Fast-food restaurant

Fast-food opportunities

Variety healthier entrée options

Variety healthier side dish options


Deprivation

b (SE)

b (SE)

b (SE)

b (SE)


High

0.24 (0.59)

2.39 (0.90)

1.02 (0.43)*

0.83 (0.18)

Medium

0.24 (0.50)

0.67 (0.76)

0.23 (0.36)

0.16 (0.15)


R2

0.611

0.708

0.662

0.509

P

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001



Model 2

Access (number of fast-food opportunities within 3 network miles)


Fast-food restaurants

Fast-food opportunities

Variety healthier entrée options

Variety healthier side dish options


Deprivation

b (SE)

b (SE)

b (SE)

b (SE)


High

2.75 (1.31)*

5.91 (2.42)*

2.92 (0.98)

1.37 (0.35)

Medium

0.45 (1.11)

1.11 (2.05)

0.49(0.83)

0.11 (0.29)


R2

0.713

0.716

0.722

0.658

P

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001


NOTE: In both models, the four equations were simultaneously estimated, controlling for population density. In model 1 (fast-food opportunities within 1 network mile), deprivation entered as categorical variable; low deprivation is referent group. Model 2 estimates the relationships between deprivation and the number of fast-food opportunities within 3 network miles. In both models, population density entered as continuous variable. Results reported as multivariate-adjusted b (SE). Statistically significant variables are indicated as: *< 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.001

Sharkey et al. Nutrition Journal 2011 10:10   doi:10.1186/1475-2891-10-10

Open Data