| Literature DB >> 22819370 |
Anne Ellaway1, Laura Macdonald, Karen Lamb, Lukar Thornton, Peter Day, Jamie Pearce.
Abstract
Increase in the consumption of food and drinks outside the home by adolescents and young people and associations with rising levels of obesity is a significant concern worldwide and it has been suggested that the food environment around schools may be a contributory factor. As few studies have explored this issue in a UK setting, we examined whether different types of food outlets are clustered around public secondary schools in Glasgow, and whether this pattern differed by social disadvantage. We found evidence of clustering of food outlets around schools but a more complex picture in relation to deprivation was observed. Across all schools there were numerous opportunities for pupils to purchase energy dense foods locally and the implications for policy are discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22819370 PMCID: PMC3512056 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.06.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Place ISSN: 1353-8292 Impact factor: 4.078
Fig. 1Location of secondary schools and food outlets in Glasgow.
Number (and %) of each food outlet type in Glasgow; number (and %) within 400 m and within 800 m of schools by deprivation quartile of school⁎.
| N (%) | N (%) | ||||||||||
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
| 436 | 45 | 19 (42.2) | 10 | 12 | 4 | ||||||
| (19.5) | (100.0) | (22.2) | (26.7) | (8.9) | 182 | 61 | 43 | 64 | 14 | ||
| (100.0) | (33.5) | (23.6) | (35.2) | (7.7) | |||||||
| 873 | 128 | 44 | 25 | 31 | 28 | 416 | 130 | 74 | 138 | 74 | |
| (39.0) | (100.0) | (34.4) | (19.5) | (24.2) | (21.9) | (100.0) | (31.3) | (17.8) | (33.2) | (17.8) | |
| 33 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| (1.5) | (100.0) | (0.0) | (100.0) | (0.0) | (0.0) | (100.0) | (14.3) | (14.3) | (42.9) | (28.6) | |
| 735 | 84 | 28 | 19 | 21 | 16 | 346 | 99 | 75 | 107 | 65 | |
| (32.9) | (100.0) | (33.3) | (22.6) | (25.0) | (19.0) | (100.0) | (28.6) | (21.7) | (30.9) | (18.8) | |
| 159 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 56 | 7 | 23 | 16 | 10 | |
| (7.1) | (100.0) | (30.8) | (38.5) | (15.4) | (15.4) | (100.0) | (12.5) | (41.1) | (28.6) | (17.9) | |
| 2236 | 271 | 95 | 60 | 66 | 50 | 1007 | 298 | 216 | 328 | 165 | |
| (100.0) | (100.0) | (35.1) | (22.1) | (24.4) | (18.5) | (100.0) | (29.6) | (21.4) | (32.6) | (16.4) | |
Deprivation scale (based on % of pupils eligible for free schools meals): Q1=lzeast deprived, Q4=most deprived.
Fig. 2Bivariate K-function plot with pointwise simulation envelopes showing clustering of all fast food outlets around schools.
Ratio of the observed to expected K-function outlet densities at distances from Glasgow public secondary schools.
| Distance from secondary schools | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 400 m | 800 m | 1200 m | 1500 m | |
| Cafés | 2.92 | 2.79 | 2.40 | 2.34 |
| Takeaway | 3.84 | 2.96 | 2.44 | 2.28 |
| National fast food chains | 0.00 | 1.44 | 1.52 | 1.64 |
| Food stores | 3.28 | 3.19 | 2.71 | 2.56 |
| Vans | 1.49 | 1.91 | 1.79 | 1.87 |
| All | 3.45 | 3.07 | 2.60 | 2.48 |
| Q1 (least deprived) | 5.30 | 3.75 | 3.07 | 2.77 |
| Q2 | 3.03 | 2.74 | 2.95 | 2.82 |
| Q3 | 3.68 | 4.01 | 3.11 | 2.80 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 1.99 | 1.94 | 1.44 | 1.66 |
No statistical evidence of clustering from assessment of plot with simulation envelope.
Ratio of the observed to expected K-function outlet densities by food outlet type, stratified by deprivation.
| 400 m | 800 m | 1200 m | 1600 m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 (least deprived) | 5.77 | 3.66 | 2.91 | 2.41 |
| Q2 | 2.40 | 2.52 | 2.80 | 2.77 |
| Q3 | 2.64 | 3.90 | 2.94 | 2.82 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 0.86 | 1.03 | 0.91 | 1.31 |
| Q1 (least deprived) | 5.25 | 3.79 | 3.00 | 2.69 |
| Q2 | 3.15 | 2.13 | 2.47 | 2.34 |
| Q3 | 4.31 | 3.93 | 2.93 | 2.59 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 2.68 | 2.01 | 1.40 | 1.53 |
| Q1 (least deprived) | 0.00 | 1.30 | 1.45 | 1.30 |
| Q2 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 1.30 |
| Q3 | 0.00 | 1.34 | 1.49 | 1.52 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 0.00 | 1.93 | 2.00 | 1.83 |
| Q1 (least deprived) | 4.89 | 3.67 | 3.16 | 2.98 |
| Q2 | 3.05 | 2.83 | 3.09 | 2.90 |
| Q3 | 3.51 | 4.12 | 3.14 | 2.73 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 1.87 | 2.27 | 1.62 | 1.75 |
| Q1 (least deprived) | 2.28 | 1.14 | 1.01 | 1.05 |
| Q2 | 1.71 | 3.84 | 2.91 | 2.71 |
| Q3 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.81 | 1.74 |
| Q4 (most deprived) | 0.54 | 1.07 | 1.07 | 1.56 |
No statistical evidence of clustering from assessment of plot with simulation envelope.