Poverty, Sprawl, and Restaurant Types Influence Body Mass Index of Residents in California Counties

Abstract

Objectives. This article examines the relationships between structural poverty (the proportion of people in a county living at 130% of the federal poverty level [FPL]), urban sprawl, and three types of restaurants (grouped as fast food, chain full service, and independent full service) in explaining body mass index (BMI) of individuals.

Retail Tobacco Exposure: Using Geographic Analysis to Identify Areas With Excessively High Retail Density

“…Regarding substantive criteria, as a large number of classes may produce classes that are statistically but not practically different, and small class sizes may result in classes that are difficult to interpret meaningfully (Huang, 2012), we stopped adding classes when the smallest class size was less than 5% of the number of census tracts. Latent variable mixture modeling was conducted using Mplus 6.11 software (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2011.…”

“…Other possible applications of this method include examining different exposure risks linked to poor health and socio-demographic variation, such as alcohol and fast-food consumption Boone-Heinonen et al, 2011;Chartier & Caetano, 2010;Gregson, 2011). It is only through such a thoughtful approach that we will ensure the greatest impact for our investment in public health.…”

Retail Environments as a Venue for Obesity Prevention

“…However, slightly more evidence exists supporting the latter. Studies by Gregson, Ingami, and colleagues and Mehata and colleagues both observed that access to fast food restaurants was associated with increased BMI [56, 65, 66]. Additionally, Morland and colleagues reported that the presence of convenience stores was associated with higher obesity prevalence [62].…”

“…Additionally, Morland and colleagues reported that the presence of convenience stores was associated with higher obesity prevalence [62]. Despite the studies yielding statistically significant results in the desired direction [51, 54, 56, 62, 65–68], a fair percentage of studies observed null findings [52, 55, 57, 58, 69–71]. Contrary to most findings, studies reporting unexpected or negative results also exist in the literature [49, 50, 55, 57].…”

“…The vast majority of the studies conducted have employed a cross-sectional study design [12••, 49, 51, 54, 56, 62, 65–69]. Longitudinal studies in this area have been limited [50, 52, 58, 63, 71].…”