Skip to main content

Table 1 Spatial accessibility to fast-food restaurants and fast-food opportunities by neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, using measures of proximity and coverage1,2

From: Focusing on fast food restaurants alone underestimates the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and exposure to fast food in a large rural area

 

All Deprivation (n= 101)

Low Deprivation (n= 26)

Medium Deprivation (n= 48)

High Deprivation (n= 27)

SPATIAL ACCESSIBILITY

    

   Proximity, mi

    

Fast-food restaurant

6.2 ± 5.5 (4.5)

9.1 ± 5.0 (9.5)

7.0 ± 5.3 (6.1)

2.1 ± 3.7 (0.7)¶

Fast-food opportunity

3.3 ± 3.0 (2.7)

5.2 ± 3.6 (4.3)

3.5 ± 2.4 (3.7)

1.0 ± 1.6 (0.6)¶

Healthier entrée (≥1)

3.7 ± 3.3 (4.3)

5.5 ± 3.6 (4.7)

4.2 ± 3.0 (3.8)

1.1 ± 1.5 (0.6) ¶

Healthier entrées

5.7 ± 5.1 (4.3)

7.9 ± 4.9 (7.6)

6.7 ± 4.9 (6.3)

1.8 ± 3.5 (0.7)¶

Healthier side dishes

7.3 ± 3.3 (6.5)

10.7 ± 7.8 (4.7)

8.4 ± 4.9 (3.8)

2.3 ± 3.3 (0.6)¶

   Coverage - 1 mi

    

Fast-food restaurant

1.6 ± 3.3 (0)

0.7 ± 3.5 (0)

1.2 ± 3.4 (0)

3.0 ± 2.3 (3)¶

Fast-food opportunity

3.2 ± 5.7 (0)

1.1 ± 5.5 (0)

2.3 ± 5.4 (0)

7.0 ± 4.7 (7)¶

Healthier entrée (≥1)

2.5 ± 4.7 (0)

1.0 ± 4.9 (0)

1.8 ± 4.6 (0)

5.1 ± 3.5 (5)¶

Healthier entrées

1.4 ± 2.5 (0)

0.5 ± 2.3 (0)

0.9 ± 2.4 (0)

3.0 ± 2.2 (3)¶

Healthier side dishes

0.4 ± 0.9 (0)

0.4 ± 0.2 (0)

0.2 ± 0.8 (0)

1.2 ± 1.0 (1)¶

   Coverage - 3 mi

    

Fast-food restaurant

5.0 ± 8.4 (0)

2.3 ± 6.4 (0)

3.5 ± 7.2 (0)

10.4 ± 9.7 (9)¶

Fast-food opportunity

9.9 ± 15.5 (1)

4.6 ± 11.6 (0.5)

7.0 ± 13.5 (1)

20.2 ± 17.8 (14)¶

Healthier entrée (≥1)

7.7 ± 12.5 (1)

3.6 ± 9.4 (0)

5.6 ± 10.8 (0.5)

15.6 ± 14.6 (10)¶

Healthier entrées

4.2 ± 6.4 (0)

1.8 ± 4.8 (0)

2.9 ± 5.6 (0)

8.7 ± 7.0 (6)¶

Healthier side dishes

1.4 ± 2.0 (0)

0.6 ± 1.3 (0)

0.9 ± 1.7 (0)

3.1 ± 2.2 (3)¶

   Coverage - 5 mi

    

Fast-food restaurant

6.1 ± 9.1 (1)

4.0 ± 8.8 (0)

4.8 ± 8.2 (0)

10.6 ± 9.6 (9)¶

Fast-food opportunity

12.7 ± 17.2 (3)

8.5 ± 16.6 (1)

10.0 ± 15.4 (2)

21.4 ± 18.3 (15)¶

Healthier entrée (≥1)

9.8 ± 13.8 (3)

6.3 ± 13.3 (1)

8.0 ± 12.4 (1.5)

16.4 ± 14.8 (10)¶

Healthier entrées

5.3 ± 7.1 (1)

3.3 ± 6.8 (0)

4.2 ± 6.5 (0)

9.3 ± 7.2 (7)¶

Healthier side dishes

1.7 ± 2.2 (0)

1.0 ± 1.8 (0)

1.2 ± 2.0 (0)

3.2 ± 2.1 (4)¶

  1. 1Fast-food opportunities include fast-food restaurants, traditional food stores (supercenters, supermarkets, grocery stores), and convenience stores that market fast food lunch/dinner entrées and/or side dishes.
  2. 2 Values calculated for each of the 101 CBG (census block group) in the study area. Proximity determined by the network distance from each population-weighted CBG centroid to the nearest fast-food only restaurant or fast-food opportunity; coverage is determined by the number of fast-food restaurants or fast-food opportunities within a specific network-based distance. Distances (proximity), numbers (coverage) are shown as mean ± standard deviation (median) overall and by category of deprivation.
  3. Healthier entrée (≥1) = at least one lunch/dinner entrée with a healthier option; Healthier entrées = at least 2 lunch/dinner entrées with a healthier option; Healthier side dishes = at least 2 side dishes with a healthier option.
  4. Level of statistical significance for test for trend across ordered groups of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation: ‡ p < 0.05 § p < 0.01 ¶ p < 0.001
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us