Skip to main content

Table 2 Standardized β values for the relationship between deprivation and the percentage of the population declaring ‘not good health’ for two different data segmentations

From: The effects of deprivation and relative deprivation on self-reported morbidity in England: an area-level ecological study

Data segmentation Rank of deprivation Slope β1(target area deprivation) Slope β2(deprivation differential) Ratio β12
IMD thirds segementation     
Upper third (most deprived) 1 0.531*** 0.221*** 2.202
Medium third (middle deprived) 2 0.555*** 0.513*** 1.081
Lower third (least deprived) 3 0.732*** 0.748*** 0.978
P2 categories segmentation     
New Starters 6 0.736*** 0.237*** 3.105
Urban Challenge 1 0.452*** 0.200*** 2.260
Multicultural Centres 3 0.604*** 0.265*** 2.279
Qualified Metropolitan 8 0.542*** 0.246*** 2.203
Weathered Communities 4 0.441*** 0.252*** 1.750
Urban Producers 5 0.627*** 0.446*** 1.405
Disadvantaged Households 2 0.701*** 0.523*** 1.340
Senior Neighbourhoods 9 0.541*** 0.418*** 1.294
Suburban Stability 7 0.534*** 0.464*** 1.150
Country Orchards 11 0.600*** 0.577*** 1.039
Rooted Households 10 0.555*** 0.558*** 1.008
Blossoming Families 12 0.601*** 0.633*** 0.949
Mature oaks 13 0.638*** 0.688*** 0.927
  1. *** Significance level p< 0.001. The ranks of deprivation shows the order of deprivation for each cohort (13 = most affluent cohort, 1 = most deprived cohort).
  2. Predictor variables are area deprivation and deprivation differential (Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007) and the outcome variable is the log transformed percentage of the population declaring ‘not good health’ (from the 2001 UK census) for 32482 small areas across the whole of England. The results (for two data segmentation-IMD thirds and People and Places P2) are ordered by decreasing dominance of the target area deprivation to the deprivation differential (ratio of the slopes, β1 to β2).