Table 3:

Negative binomial regression comparing cannabis stores per capita within 1000 m of the geographic centre of neighbourhoods in the lowest income quintile (Q1) and the highest income quintile (Q5)

Retail model; jurisdictionIncident rate ratio (95% CI), Q1:Q5 (reference)
Model A*Model B*
Private/hybrid
Yukon Territory (hybrid)
British Columbia (hybrid)2.73 (1.83–4.06)2.02 (1.34–3.05)
Alberta2.89 (2.16–3.88)2.42 (1.79–3.27)
Saskatchewan2.27 (1.26–4.07)1.75 (0.97–3.17)
Manitoba4.89 (2.71–8.84)3.04 (1.66–5.58)
Ontario1.44 (1.02–2.05)1.02 (0.71–1.48)
Newfoundland and Labrador2.47 (1.36–4.51)1.32 (0.74–2.34)
Total2.64 (2.22–3.14)2.33 (1.96–2.79)
Government
Northwest Territories0.63 (0.10–3.75)0.66 (0.11–3.97)
Quebec4.24 (2.57–7.00)2.84 (1.65–4.91)
New Brunswick2.41 (1.22–4.78)1.72 (0.84–3.52)
Nova Scotia4.63 (2.14–10.04)3.74 (1.73–8.16)
Prince Edward Island3.89 (0.82–18.33)1.66 (0.27–9.99
Total3.50 (2.50–4.91)3.05 (2.16–4.31)
Grand total2.71 (2.32–3.16)2.33 (1.98–2.72)
  • Note: CI = confidence interval.

  • * Both models are offset by the total population of a dissemination area. Model B adjusts for the population density of each dissemination area in people per square kilometre.

  • Unstable regression model, as income has near-perfect prediction for the dependent variable.

  • Interaction between private/hybrid retail system v. government retail system and income quintiles was not significant (p = 0.2).