Skip to main content

Table 6 aEstimates from regression analyses for frequency (ntrips/wk)b and duration (hr/wk)c of walking for transportation

From: Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking for transportation: A cross-sectional study of older adults living on low income

    Frequency (ntrips/wk)    Duration (hr/wk)
  Crude    Adjusted Crude    Adjusted
    Model 2e   Model 3f     Model 4e   Model 5h  
Predictor (n = 124)d
IRR (95% CI)
P (n =124)
IRR (95% CI)
P (n =121)
IRR (95% CI)
P (n = 124)g
β (95% CI)
P (n = 124)
β (95% CI)
P (n = 112)
β (95% CI)
P
Street Smart Walk Score (10-point change) 1.06 (1.01, 1.10)* 0.013 1.06 (1.01, 1.11)* 0.011 1.03 (0.98, 1.08) 0.206 −0.01 (−0.23, 0.21) 0.920 −0.01 (−0.23, 0.21) 0.956 −0.01 (−0.27, 0.25) 0.935
Women 0.89 (0.74, 1.07) 0.228 0.89 (0.74, 1.08) 0.237 0.87 (0.72, 1.06) 0.181 −0.69 (−1.71, 0.34) 0.187 −0.68 (−1.71, 0.35) 0.196 −0.81 (−1.89, 0.28) 0.145
Age (10-year change) 0.94 (0.81, 1.09) 0.437 0.93 (0.80, 1.08) 0.354 1.04 (0.89, 1.23) 0.608 −0.21 (−1.02, 0.60) 0.613 −0.19 (−1.00, 0.62) 0.643 0.12 (−0.76, 1.00) 0.786
Vehicle available - - - - - - −0.98 (−1.97, 0.01) 0.053 - - −0.68 (−1.78, 0.41) 0.217
Crimei - - - - - - −0.79 (−1.52,−0.06)* 0.034 - - −0.76 (−1.62, 0.09) 0.079
Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.98 (0.96, 1.00)* 0.041 - - 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 0.420 −0.09 (−0.19, 0.00) 0.058 - - −0.11 (−0.21,−0.01)* 0.046
Comorbiditiesj 0.96 (0.92, 1.01) 0.097 - - 1.00 (0.95, 1.06) 0.989 - - - - - -
Very much like to walkk 1.66 (1.28, 2.14)* <0.001 - - 1.52 (1.15, 2.01)* 0.004 1.29 (0.15, 2.44)* 0.027 - - 1.44 (0.15, 2.73)* 0.029
Ambulatory confidencel 1.09 (1.02, 1.16)* 0.010 - - 1.05 (0.98, 1.13) 0.184 - - - - - -
Social Cohesionm - - - - - - −0.81 (−1.55,−0.06)* 0.034 - - −0.65 (−1.45, 0.15) 0.109
Disordern 0.80 (0.68, 0.95)* 0.009 - - 1.19 (0.99, 1.43) 0.057 −0.71 (−1.68, 0.25) 0.144 - - 0.23 (−0.96, 1.43) 0.699
  1. aThese analyses only include participants (n = 124) that self-reported ≥ 1 walking for transportation trip [as measured by the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) survey]
  2. bAnalysed using truncated poisson regression models. Data are presented as incident rate ratios (IRRs)
  3. cAnalysed using linear regression models
  4. dncrime = 117; ncomorbidities = 121; ndisorder = 123
  5. eadjusted for Street Smart Walk Score, gender, and age
  6. fadjusted for all predictor variables listed in this table with the exception of vehicle availability, crime, and social cohesion, since these three variables were not associated with frequency of walking for transportation (ntrips/wk) at p ≤ 0.2 in bivariate analyses
  7. gnvehicle available = 123; ncrime = 117; nsocial cohesion = 120; ndisorder = 123
  8. hadjusted for all predictor variables listed in this table with the exception of comorbidities and ambulatory confidence, since these two variables were not associated with duration of walking for transportation (hr/wk) at p ≤ 0.2 in bivariate analyses
  9. iNeighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale—abbreviated (NEWS-A) Subscale H: Crime (four-point scale); reverse coded so that higher score indicates better walkability
  10. jTotal number; measured with the Functional Comorbidity Index
  11. kVery much like to walk (5 on a 5-point scale) vs. less than very much liking to walk (1–4 on a 5-point scale)
  12. lAssessed by the Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire
  13. m5-item measure of social cohesion and trust
  14. n5-item measure of neighbourhood physical and social disorder; reverse coded so that higher score indicates better walkability (less disorder)
  15. *p < 0.05