Table 1 Sociodemographic factors and obesity†
| Frequency distribution, % | Crude OR | Adjusted OR | (95% CI) | p Value for trend | |
| Income (Baht) | |||||
| ⩽7000 | 42 | 1 | 1 | – | 0.003 |
| 7001–10 000 | 23 | 1.23 | 0.95 | (0.90 to 1.01) | |
| 10 001–20 000 | 24 | 2.21 | 1.12 | (1.06 to 1.19) | |
| ⩾20 000 | 11 | 3.17 | 1.10 | (1.01 to 1.18) | |
| (100%) | |||||
| Education | |||||
| ⩽High school | 49 | 1 | 1 | – | NS* |
| Diploma | 27 | 0.88 | 1.01 | (0.96 to 1.06) | |
| University | 24 | 1.09 | 0.96 | (0.91 to 1.01) | |
| (100%) | |||||
| Marital status | |||||
| Single | 43 | 1 | 1 | – | <0.001 |
| Partnered | 57 | 2.5 | 1.31 | (1.25 to 1.37) | |
| (100%) | |||||
| Chinese ethnicity | |||||
| No | 72 | 1 | 1 | – | <0.001 |
| Yes | 28 | 1.3 | 1.13 | (1.08 to 1.18) | |
| (100%) | |||||
| Region | |||||
| Bangkok | 17 | 1 | 1 | – | –‡ |
| Central | 24 | 0.95 | 1.04 | (0.98 to 1.11) | |
| North | 18 | 0.92 | 0.95 | (0.88 to 1.02) | |
| North-East | 21 | 0.91 | 0.90 | (0.84 to 0.96) | |
| East | 6 | 0.85 | 0.90 | (0.82 to 0.99) | |
| South | 13 | 0.82 | 0.91 | (0.84 to 0.99) | |
| (100%) | |||||
| Urbanisation status§ | |||||
| Rural–rural (RR) | 44 | 1 | 1 | – | <0.001 |
| Rural–urban (RU) | 32 | 1.07 | 0.94 | (0.89 to 0.99) | |
| Urban–rural (UR) | 4 | 1.68 | 1.42 | (1.29 to 1.55) | |
| Urban–urban (UU) | 20 | 1.61 | 1.47 | (1.38 to 1.55) | |
| (100%) |
-
†Risk of obesity expressed as odds ratios (ORs). Adjusted ORs were derived from a logistic regression model which included age, sex and all six sociodemographic factors.
-
*NS, not significant.
-
‡p value for trend not computed—no natural ordering.
-
§Location of residence (rural, R, or urban, U) when 10–12 years old and in 2005. For example, RU is rural residence when 10–12 years old and urban in 2005.
