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 β1/β2

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).