| N (%) | N (%) low fruit and veg | N (%) medium fruit and veg | N (%) high fruit and veg | Unadjusted | Confounder adjusted | Mutually adjusted | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | p-value (trend) | OR | 95% CI | p-value (trend) | OR | 95% CI | p-value (trend) | |||||
Area-level exposures of interest | |||||||||||||
 Unhealthy food marketing environmenta |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.40 |  |  | 0.42 |  |  | 0.27 |
  0 (no adverts present) | 1180 (58.8) | 382 (32.4) | 414 (35.1) | 384 (32.5) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 (fewer adverts) | 481 (24.0) | 157 (32.6) | 154 (32.0) | 170 (35.3) | 0.92 | 0.75, 1.13 |  | 0.91 | 0.74, 1.12 |  | 0.84 | 0.66, 1.06 |  |
  2 (more adverts) | 346 (17.2) | 129 (37.3) | 97 (28.0) | 120 (34.7) | 0.92 | 0.73, 1.16 |  | 0.93 | 0.73, 1.17 |  | 0.89 | 0.68, 1.17 |  |
 Road quality scoreb |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.76 |  |  | 0.91 |  |  | 0.61 |
  0 (worst walking environment) | 586 (29.2) | 188 (32.1) | 183 (31.2) | 215 (36.7) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 | 716 (35.7) | 262 (36.6) | 227 (31.7) | 227 (31.7) | 0.87 | 0.71, 1.07 |  | 0.89 | 0.72, 1.10 |  | 0.90 | 0.72, 1.12 |  |
  2 (best walking environment) | 705 (35.1) | 218 (30.9) | 255 (36.2) | 232 (32.9) | 0.96 | 0.78, 1.20 |  | 0.98 | 0.79, 1.23 |  | 1.06 | 0.84, 1.33 |  |
 Transport |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.10 |  |  | 0.26 |  |  | 0.69 |
  0 (fewest bus stops) | 620 (30.9) | 183 (29.5) | 213 (34.4) | 224 (36.1) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 | 763 (38.0) | 266 (34.9) | 234 (30.7) | 263 (34.5) | 0.87 | 0.72, 1.07 |  | 0.91 | 0.74, 1.11 |  | 0.92 | 0.72, 1.16 |  |
  2 (most bus stops) | 624 (31.1) | 219 (35.1) | 218 (34.9) | 187 (30.0) | 0.84 | 0.68, 1.03 |  | 0.88 | 0.71, 1.10 |  | 0.94 | 0.72, 1.24 |  |
 Area-level incomec |  |  |  |  |  |  | <0.001 |  |  | 0.009 |  |  | 0.003 |
  0 (least deprived) | 990 (49.3) | 289 (29.2) | 316 (31.9) | 385 (38.9) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 | 598 (29.8) | 206 (34.5) | 210 (35.1) | 182 (30.4) | 0.82 | 0.67, 0.99 |  | 0.86 | 0.71, 1.06 |  | 0.82 | 0.66, 1.01 |  |
  2 (most deprived) | 419 (20.9) | 173 (41.3) | 139 (33.2) | 107 (25.5) | 0.67 | 0.53, 0.84 |  | 0.73 | 0.58, 0.93 |  | 0.69 | 0.54, 0.89 |  |
 Walkabilityd |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.27 |  |  | 0.41 |  |  | 0.52 |
  0 (lowest walkability) | 528 (26.3) | 158 (29.9) | 176 (33.3) | 194 (36.7) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 | 772 (38.5) | 256 (33.2) | 252 (32.6) | 264 (34.2) | 0.93 | 0.75, 1.15 |  | 0.94 | 0.76, 1.17 |  | 1.09 | 0.82, 1.46 |  |
  2 (highest walkability) | 707 (35.2) | 254 (35.9) | 237 (33.5) | 216 (30.6) | 0.88 | 0.71, 1.10 |  | 0.91 | 0.73, 1.14 |  | 1.13 | 0.79, 1.60 |  |
 Population densitye |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.02 |  |  | 0.07 |  |  | 0.20 |
  0 Lowest population density | 604 (30.1) | 176 (29.1) | 197 (32.6) | 231 (38.3) | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  | 1.00 | (ref) |  |
  1 | 755 (37.6) | 256 (33.9) | 243 (32.2) | 256 (33.9) | 0.88 | 0.72, 1.08 |  | 0.89 | 0.72, 1.09 |  | 0.87 | 0.65, 1.15 |  |
  2 Highest population density | 648 (32.3) | 236 (36.4) | 225 (34.7) | 187 (28.9) | 0.77 | 0.62, 0.95 |  | 0.81 | 0.66, 1.01 |  | 0.79 | 0.56, 1.13 |  |