Author | Exposure | Study result | 95% Confidence interval or p-value | Adjustment for confounding |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ahern et al., 2011 | Food environment: | Beta (SE) | Â | Age and obesity rate |
1. % household with no car living more than 1 mile from a grocery store | 1. 0.07 (0.01) | 1. P < 0.001 | ||
2. fast food restaurants per 1000 | 2. 0.41 (0.07) | 2. P < 0.001 | ||
3. Full service restaurants per 1000 | 3. -0.15 (0.04) | 3. P < 0.01 | ||
4. grocery stores per 1000 | 4. -0.37 (0.09) | 4. P < 0.001 | ||
5. convenience stores per 1000 | 5. 0.30 (0.06) | 5. P < 0.001 | ||
6. direct money made from farm sales per capita | 6. -0.01 (0.02) | 6. P < 0.01 | ||
PA environment: | Â | Â | ||
7. recreational facilities per 1000 | 7. -0.12 (0.21) | 7. NS | ||
AlHasan et al., 2016 | Food outlet density: | Beta (SE) | Â | Age, obesity, PA, recreation facility density, unemployed, education, household with no cars and limited access to store and race. |
1. Fast food restaurant density (per 1000 residents) | 1. -0.55 (0.90) | 1. NS | ||
2. Convenience store density | 2. 0.89 (0.86) | 2. NS | ||
3. Super store density | 3. -0.4 (11.66) | 3. NS | ||
4. Grocery store density | 4. -3.7 (2.13) | 4. NS | ||
Astell-Burt et al., 2014 | Green space (percent): | OR: | 95%CI: | age, sex, couple status, family history, country of birth, language spoken at home, weight, psychological distress, smoking status, hypertension, diet, walking, MVPA, sitting, economic status, annual income, qualifications, neighbourhood affluence, geographic remoteness. |
1. >81 | 1. 0.94 | 1. 0.85 - 1.03 | ||
2. 0-20 | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Auchincloss et al., 2009 | Neighbourhood resources: | HR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, family history, income, assets, education, ethnicity, alcohol, smoking, PA, diet, BMI |
1. Healthy food resources | 1. 0.63 | 1. 0.42 – 0.93 | ||
2. PA resources | 2. 0.71 | 2. 0.48 – 1.05 | ||
3. Summary score | 3. 0.64 | 3. 0.44 – 0.95 | ||
Bodicoat et al., 2014 | Green space (percent) | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, area social deprivation score, urban/rural status, BMI, PA, fasting glucose, 2 h glucose, total cholesterol |
1. Least green space (Q1) | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Most green space (Q4) | 2. 0.53 | 2. 0.35 – 0.82 | ||
Bodicoat et al., 2015 | Â | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, area social deprivation score, urban/rural status, ethnicity, PA |
1. Number of fast-food outlets (per 2) | 1. 1.02 | 1. 1.00 – 1.04 | ||
2. Density of fast-food outlet (per 200 residents) | 2. 13.84 | 2. 1.60 – 119.6 | ||
Booth et al., 2013 | Walkability: | HR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, income |
Men | Men | Â | ||
Recent immigrants | Recent immigrants | Â | ||
1. Least walkable quintile | 1. 1.58 | 1. 1.42 – 1.75 | ||
2. Most walkable quintile | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Long-term residents | Long-term residents: | Â | ||
1. Least walkable quintile | 1. 1.32 | 1. 1.26 – 1.38 | ||
2. Most walkable quintile | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Women | Women | Â | ||
Recent immigrants | Recent immigrants: | Â | ||
1. Least walkable quintile | 1. 1.67 | 1. 1.48 – 1.88 | ||
2. Most walkable quintile | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Long-term residents | Long –term residents: |  | ||
1. Least walkable quintile | 1. 1.24 | 1. 1.18 – 1.31 | ||
2. Most walkable quintile | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Braun et al., 2016 | Walkability index, after residential relocation | Beta (SE) | Â | Â |
1. Fixed effects model | 1. -0.011 (0.015) | 1. P > 0.05 | 1. income, household size, marital status, employment status, smoking status, health problems that interfere with PA | |
2. Random effects model | 2. -0.016 (0.010) | 2. P > 0.05 | 2. Additionally adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, education | |
Braun et al., 2016 | Walkability: within person change in Street Smart Walk Score | Beta (SE): 0.999 (0.002) | P > 0.05 | Age, sex, ethnicity, education, household income, employment status, marital status, neighbourhood SES |
Cai et al., 2017 | Daytime noise (dB) | % change in fasting glucose per IQR daytime noise: 0.2 | 95%CI: 0.1 – 0.3 P < 0.05 | age, sex, season of blood draw, smoking status and pack-years, education, employment and alcohol consumption, air pollution |
Carroll et al., 2017 | Â | Beta per SD change: | 95% CI: | Age, sex, marital status, education, employment status, and smoking status |
Count of fast-food outlets: | −0.0094 | -0.030 – 0.011 | ||
1. Interaction with overweight/obesity | 1. −0.002 | 1. -0.023 – 0.019 | ||
2. Interaction with time | 2. 0.0003 | 2. -0.003 – 0.004 | ||
3. Interaction with time and overweight/obesity | 3. -0.002 | 3. -0.006 – 0.001 | ||
Count of healthful food resources: | 0.012 | -0.008 – 0.032 | ||
4. Interaction with overweight/obesity | 4. 0.021 | 4. -0.000 – 0.042 | ||
5. Interaction with time | 5. -0.003 | 5. -0.006 – 0.001 | ||
6. Interaction with time and overweight/obesity | 6. -0.006 | 6. -0.009 – -0.002 | ||
Christine et al., 2015 | Neighbourhood physical environment, diet related: | HR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, family history, household per capita income, educational level, smoking, alcohol, neighbourhood SES |
1. Density of supermarkets and/or fruit and vegetable markets (GIS) | 1. 1.01 | 1. 0.96 – 1.07 | ||
2. Healthy food availability (self-report) | 2. 0.88 | 2. 0.78 – 0.98 | ||
3. GIS and self-report combined measure | 3. 0.93 | 3. 0.82 – 1.06 | ||
Neighbourhood physical environment, PA related: | Â | Â | ||
1. Density of commercial recreational facilities (GIS) | 1. 0.98 | 1. 0.94 – 1.03 | ||
2. Walking environment (self-report) | 2. 0.80 | 2. 0.70 – 0.92 | ||
3. GIS and self-report combined measure | 3. 0.81 | 3. 0.68 – 0.96 | ||
Creatore et al., 2016 | Walkability: | Absolute incidence rate difference over 12 year FU: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, area income and ethnicity |
1. Low walkable neighbourhoods (Q1) | 1. -0.65 | 1. -1.65 – 0.39 | ||
2. High walkable neighbourhoods over (Q5) | 2. - 1.5 | 2. -2.6 – -0.4 | ||
Cunningham-Myrie et al, 2015 | Neighbourhood characteristics: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, district, fruit and vegetable intake |
1. Neighbourhood infrastructure | 1. 1.02 | 1. 0.95 – 1.1 | ||
2. Neighbourhood disorder score | 2. 0.99 | 2. 0.95 – 1.03 | ||
3. Home disorder score | 3. 1 | 3. 0.96 – 1.03 | ||
4. Recreational space in walking distance | 4. 1.12 | 4. 0.86 – 1.45 | ||
5. Recreational space availability | 5. 1.01 | 5. 0.77 – 1.32 | ||
6. Perception of safety | 6. 0.99 | 6. 0.88 – 1.11 | ||
Dalton et al., 2016 | Green space: | HR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, BMI, parental diabetes, and SES. Effect modification by urban-rural status and SES was investigated, but association was not moderated by either |
1. Least green space (Q1) | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Most green space (Q4) | 2. 0.81 | 2. 0.65 – 0.99 | ||
3. Mediation by PA | 3. 0.96 | 3. 0.88 -1.06 | ||
Dzhambov et al., 2016 | Day-evening-night equivalent sound level: | OR: | 95%: | Age, sex, fine particulate matter, benzo alpha pyrene, body mass index, family history of T2D, subjective sleep disturbance, and bedroom location |
1. 51-70 decibels | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. 71-80 decibels | 2. 4.49 | 2. 1.39 – 14.7 | ||
Eichinger et al., 2015 | Characteristics of built residential environment: | Beta: | Â | Age, sex, individual-level SES |
1. Perceived distance to local facilities | 1. 0.006 | P < 0.01 | ||
2. Perceived availability / maintenance of cycling/walking infrastructure | 2. NS | |||
3. Perceived connectivity | 3. NS | |||
4. Perceived safety with regards to traffic | 4. NS | |||
5. perceived safety from crime | 5. NS | |||
6. Neighbourhood as pleasant environment for walking / cycling | 6. NS | |||
7. Presence of trees along the streets | 7. NS | |||
Eriksson et al., 2014 | Aircraft noise level: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, family history, SES based on education, PA, smoking, alcohol, annoyance due to noise. |
1. <50 dB | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. ≥55 dB | 2. 0.94 | 2. 0.33 – 2.70 | ||
Flynt et al., 2015 | Clusters (combination of number of counties, urban-rural classification, population density, income, SES, access to food stores , obesity rate, diabetes rate): | Median standardized DM rate: | IQR: | - |
1 | 1. 0 | 1. -0.05 - 0.7 | ||
2 | 2. 0 | 2. -0.04 – 0.7 | ||
3 | 3. 0 | 3. -0.08 – 0.01 | ||
4 | 4. -0.04 | 4. -1.01 – 0.6 | ||
5 | 5. -0.08 | 5. -1.5 – -0.04 | ||
 |  | ANOVA: p < 0.001 | ||
Frankenfeld et al., 2015 | RFEI†≤ 1 Clusters: | Predicted prevalence: | 95%CI: | Demographic and SES variables |
1. Grocery stores | 1. 7.1 | 1. 6.3 – 7.9 | ||
2. Restaurants | 2. 5.9 | 2. 5.0 – 6.8, p < 0.01 | ||
3. Specialty foods | 3. 6.1 | 3. 5.0 – 7.2, p < 0.01 | ||
RFEI†> 1: |  |  | ||
4. Restaurants and fast food | 4. 6.0 | 4. 4.9 – 7.1, p < 0.01 | ||
5. Convenience stores | 5. 6.1 | 5. 4.9 – 7.3, p < 0.01 | ||
Freedman et al., 2011 | Built environment: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, ethnicity, marital status, region of residence, smoking, education, income, childhood health, childhood SES, region of birth, neighbourhood scales |
Men: | Â | Â | ||
1. Connectivity (2000 Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system). | 1. 1.06 | 1. 0.86 – 1.29 | ||
2. Density (number of food stores, restaurants, housing units per square mile) | 2. 1.05 | 2. 0.89 – 1.24 | ||
Women: | Â | Â | ||
3. Connectivity | 3. 1.01 | 3. 0.84 – 1.20 | ||
4. Densityx | 4. 0.99 | 4. 0.99 – 1.17 | ||
Fujiware et al., 2017 | Count within neighbourhood unit (mean 6.31 ± 3.9 km2) | OR per IQR increase: | 95%CI: | age, sex, marital status, household number, income, working status, drinking, smoking, vegetable consumption, walking, going-out behaviour, frequency of meeting, BMI, depression |
1. Grocery stores | 1. 0.97 | 1. 0.88 – 1.08 | ||
2. Parks | 2. 1.15 | 2. 0.98 – 1.34 | ||
Gebreab et al., 2017 | Density within 1 mile buffer: | HR: | 95%CI: | age, sex, family history of diabetes, SES, smoking, alcohol consumption, PA and diet |
1. Favourable food stores | 1. 1.03 | 1. 0.98 – 1.09 | ||
2. Unfavourable food stores | 2. 1.07 | 2. 0.99 – 1.16 | ||
3. PA resources | 3. 1.03 | 3. 0.98 – 1.09 | ||
Glazier et al., 2014 | Walkability index: | Rate ratio: | 95%CI: | Age and sex |
1. Q1 | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Q5 | 2. 1.33 | 2. 1.33 – 1.33 | ||
Index components: | Â | Â | ||
1. Population density (Q1: Q5) | 1. 1.16 | 1. 1.16 – 1.16 | ||
2. Residential density (Q1: Q5) | 2. 1.33 | 2. 1.33 – 1.33 | ||
3. Street connectivity (Q1: Q5) | 3. 1.38 | 3. 1.38 – 1.38 | ||
4. Availability of walkable destinations (Q1: Q5) | 4. 1.26 | 4. 1.26 – 1.26 | ||
Heidemann et al., 2014 | Residential traffic intensity: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, smoking, passive smoking, heating of house, education, BMI, waist circumference, PA, family history |
1. No traffic | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Extreme traffic | 2. 1.97 | 2. 1.07 – 3.64 | ||
Hipp et al., 2015 | Food deserts | Correlation: NR | NS | - |
Lee et al., 2015 | Walkability: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, smoking, alcohol, income level |
1. Community 1 | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Community 2 | 2. 0.86 | 2. 0.75 – 0.99 | ||
Loo et al., 2017 | Walkability (Walk score) Difference between Q1 and Q4 | Beta for HbA1C: | Â | Age, sex, current smoking status, BMI, relevant medications and medical diagnoses, neighbourhood violent crime rates and neighbourhood indices of material deprivation, ethnic concentration, dependency and residential instability |
1. -0.06 | 1. -0.11 – 0.02 | |||
Beta for fasting glucose: | Â | |||
2. 0.03 | 2. -0.04 – 0.1 | |||
Maas et al., 2009 | Green space: per 10% more green space in 1 km radius | OR: 0.98 | 95%CI: 0.97 – 0.99 | Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, urbanity |
Mena et al., 2015 | Â | Correlation: | Â | - |
1. Distance to parks | 1. NR | 1. NA | ||
2. Distance to markets | 2. -0,094 | 2. P < 0.05 | ||
Mezuk et al., 2016 | Ratio of the number of health-harming food outlets to the total number of food outlets within a 1,000-m buffer of each person | OR: 2.11 | 95%CI: 1.57 – 2.82 | Age, sex, education, and household income |
Morland et al., 2006 | Presence of: | Prevalence ratio: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, income, education, ethnicity, food stores and service places,, PA |
1. Supermarkets | 1. 0.96 | 1. 0.84 – 1.1 | ||
2. Grocery stores | 2. 1.11 | 2. 0.99 – 1.24 | ||
3. Convenience stores | 3. 0.98 | 3. 0.86 – 1.12 | ||
Müller-Riemenschneider et al., 2013 | Walkability (1,600 m buffer): | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, education, household income, marital status. |
1. High walkability | 1. 0.95 | 1. 0.72 – 1.25 | ||
2. Low walkability | 2. 1 | 2. NA | ||
Walkability (800 m buffer): | Â | Â | ||
3. High walkability | 3. 0.69 | 3. 0.62 – 0.90 | ||
4. Low walkability | 4. 1 | 4. NA | ||
Myers et al., 2016 | Physical activity: | Beta: | 95%CI: | Age |
1. Recreation facilities per 1000 | 1. -0.457 | 1. -0.809 – -0.104 | ||
2. Natural amenities (1 – 7) | 2. 0.084 | 2. 0.042 – 0.127 | ||
Food: | Â | Â | ||
3. Grocery stores & supercentres per 1000 | 3. 0.059 | 3. -0.09 – 0.208 | ||
4. Fast food restaurants per 1000 | 4. -0.032 | 4. -0.125 – 0.062 | ||
Ngom et al., 2016 | Distance to green space: | PR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, social and environmental predictors |
1. Q1 (0 – 264 m) | 1. 1 | 1. NA | ||
2. Q4 (774 – 27781 m) | 2. 1.09 | 2. 1.03 – 1.13 | ||
Paquet et al., 2014 | Built environmental attributes: | RR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex household income, education, duration of FU, area-level SES. |
1. RFEI¥ | 1. 0.99 | 1. 0.9 – 1.09 | ||
2. Walkability | 2. 0.88 | 2. 0.8 – 0.97 | ||
3. POS | Â | Â | ||
a. POS count | a. 1 | a. 0.92 – 1.08 | ||
b. POS size | b. 0.75 | b. 0.69 – 0.83 | ||
c. POS greenness | c. 1.01 | c. 0.9 – 1.13 | ||
d. POS type | d. 1.09 | d. 0.97 – 1.22 | ||
Schootman et al., 2007 | Neighbourhood conditions (objective): | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, income, perceived income adequacy, education, marital status, employment, length of time at present address, own the home, area |
1. Housing conditions | 1. 1.11 | 1. 0.63 – 1.95 | ||
2. Noise level from traffic, industry, etc. | 2. 0.9 | 2. 0.48 – 1.67 | ||
3. Air quality | 3. 1.2 | 3. 0.66 – 2.18 | ||
4. Street and road quality | 4. 1.03 | 4. 0.56 – 1.91 | ||
5. Yard and sidewalk quality | 5. 1.05 | 5. 0.59 – 1.88 | ||
Neighbourhood conditions (subjective): | Â | Â | ||
6. Fair - poor rating of the neighbourhood | 6. 1.04 | 6. 0.58 – 1.84 | ||
7. Mixed or terrible feeling about the neighbourhood | 7. 1.1 | 7. 0.6 – 2.02 | ||
8. Undecided or not at all attached to the neighbourhood | 8. 0.68 | 8. 0.4 – 1.18 | ||
9. Slightly unsafe - not at all safe in the neighbourhood | 9. 0.61 | 9. 0.35 – 1.06 | ||
Sørensen et al., 2013 | Exposure to road traffic noise per 10 dB: | Incidence rate ratio: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, education, municipality SES, smoking status, smoking intensity, smoking duration, environmental tobacco smoke, fruit intake, vegetable intake, saturated fat intake, alcohol, BMI, waist circumference, sports, walking, pollution. |
1. At diagnosis | 1. 1.08 | 1. 1.02 – 1.14 | ||
2. 5 years preceding diagnosis | 2. 1.11 | 2. 1.05 – 1.18 | ||
Sundquist et al., 2015 | Walkability: | OR: | 95%CI: | Age, sex, income, education, neighbourhood deprivation. |
1. D1 (low) | 1. 1.16 | 1. 1.00 – 1.34 | ||
2. D10 (high) | 2. 1 | 2. NA |