Figures
Figure 2: expected percentage of adolescents with socio-emotional behavioural problems by income trajectory and differences relative to the upper-middle trajectory
Left graph:
| Expected % of adolescents with SBPs | Estimate | 95% CI – lower bound | 95% CI – upper bound |
| Low income | 11.68% | 9.89% | 13.48% |
| Lower-middle income | 7.61% | 6.27% | 8.95% |
| Upper-middle income | 6.03% | 4.13% | 7.93% |
| High-declining income | 4.54% | 1.65% | 7.44% |
Right graph:
| Differences in expected % of adolescents with SBPs | Estimate | 95% CI – lower bound | 95% CI – upper bound |
| Low to upper-middle income | -5.65 | -8.49 | -2.82 |
| Lower-middle to upper-middle income | -1.58 | -3.72 | 0.56 |
| High-declining to upper-middle income | 1.49 | -1.81 | 4.78 |
Return to Data Impact blog post.
Figure 3: expected percentage of adolescents with socio-emotional behavioural problems and ratios relative to the upper-middle trajectory
Left graph:
| Expected % of adolescents with SBPs | Estimate | 95% CI – lower bound | 95% CI – upper bound |
| Low income | 11.68% | 9.89% | 13.48% |
| Lower-middle income | 7.61% | 6.27% | 8.95% |
| Upper-middle income | 6.03% | 4.13% | 7.93% |
| High-declining income | 4.54% | 1.65% | 7.44% |
Right graph:
| Ratios of expected % of adolescents with SBPs | Estimate | 95% CI – lower bound | 95% CI – upper bound |
| Low vs upper-middle income | 1.94 | 1.39 | 2.99 |
| Lower-middle vs upper-middle income | 1.26 | 0.93 | 1.83 |
| High-declining vs upper-middle income | 0.75 | 0.32 | 1.38 |
Return to Data Impact blog post.
Figure 4: population attributable fraction (PAF) if all adolescents had followed the upper-middle trajectory
| Population Attributable Fraction and decomposition | Estimate | 95% CI – lower bound | 95% CI – upper bound |
| PAF | 32.81% | 12.58% | 52.77% |
| PAF: low income | 26.98% | 14.37% | 39.06% |
| PAF: lower-middle income | 6.48% | -2.33% | 15.15% |
| PAF: high-declining income | -0.65% | -2.19% | 0.81% |
Return to Data Impact blog post.