Skip to main content

Table 3 Table 2 Standardized β values for the relationship between deprivation and the percentage of the population declaring Limiting Long-Term Illness (LLTI) 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 0.409*** 0.112*** 3.651
Medium third (middle deprived) 2 0.336*** 0.298*** 1.127
Lower third (least deprived) 3 0.577*** 0.602*** 0.958
P2 categories segmentation     
Urban Challenge 1 0.409*** 0.055*** 7.436
Qualified Metropolitan 8 0.400*** 0.056*** 7.142
New Starters 6 0.659*** 0.172*** 3.831
Multicultural Centres 3 0.537*** 0.179*** 3.000
Weathered Communities 4 0.366*** 0.158*** 2.316
Urban Producers 5 0.643*** 0.397*** 1.619
Disadvantaged Households 2 0.706*** 0.500*** 1.412
Senior Neighbourhoods 9 0.386*** 0.302*** 1.278
Suburban Stability 7 0.426*** 0.354*** 1.203
Rooted Households 10 0.436*** 0.404*** 1.079
Country Orchards 11 0.567*** 0.546*** 1.038
Blossoming Families 12 0.550*** 0.559*** 0.983
Mature oaks 13 0.567*** 0.606*** 0.935
  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 log transformed percentages of the population declaring LLTI (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).