Table 3 Logistic regression analyses exploring the odds of taking up active travel
Minimally adjusted model OR | Maximally adjusted model OR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(95% CI) | p | (95% CI) | p | ||
Child characteristics | Gender | ||||
Female (reference: male) | 1.19 (0.74, 1.92) | 0.481 | 1.22 (0.65, 2.27) | 0.532 | |
Weight status | |||||
Overweight/Obese (reference: normal) | 0.83 (0.46, 1.49) | 0.538 | n.e | ||
Parent characteristics | Age parent/carer left full-time education (reference: >16 yrs) | ||||
< 16 years | 2.10 (1.31, 3.37) | 0.002 | 2.23 (1.20, 4.13) | 0.011 | |
Social environment for active commuting | Children walk or cycle to non-school destination at least once a week (reference: no) | ||||
Yes | 2.01 (1.21, 3.34) | 0.007 | 1.63 (0.82, 3.22) | 0.160 | |
Composite rules score (reference: no rules)* | |||||
Mid (score = 1) | 0.77 (0.19, 3.12) | 0.770 | n.e | ||
High (score = 2) | 0.91 (0.25, 3.36) | ||||
Convenient to take the car (reference: Strongly agree/ Agree/Neither agree nor disagree) | |||||
Strongly disagree/ Disagree | 2.07 (1.28, 3.36) | 0.003 | 2.04 (1.08, 3.85) | 0.027 | |
Around to take child to school (reference: Strongly agree/ Agree/Neither agree nor disagree) | |||||
Strongly disagree/ Disagree | 0.88 (0.46, 1.68) | 0.691 | n.e | ||
Parental and peer encouragement (reference: neither) | |||||
Parental or peer encouragement for AT | 1.86 (1.08, 3.20) | 1.22 (0.61, 2.44) | |||
Parental and peer encouragement for AT | 2.36 (1.26, 4.41) | 0.001 | 1.01 (0.44, 2.31) | 0.879 | |
Physical environment for active commuting | Perceptions of the environment | ||||
Composite of route safety (reference: low) | |||||
High | 4.61 (2.79, 7.64) | 0.001 | 2.67 (1.42, 5.03) | 0.002 | |
Neighbourhood social cohesion score (reference: low) | |||||
High | 0.81 (0.51, 1.29) | 0.372 | n.e | ||
Neighbourhood environment score (reference: low) | |||||
High | 1.96 (1.22, 3.15) | 0.005 | 0.96 (0.50, 1.82) | 0.891 | |
Safe to walk/play alone in my neighbourhood during the day (reference: no) | |||||
Yes | 1.14 (0.68, 1.91) | 0.605 | n.e | ||
Objective environment Neighbourhood | |||||
Urban rural status (reference: village and hamlet) | |||||
Town and fringe | 5.24 (2.72, 10.09) | 2.89 (1.13, 7.40) | |||
Urban | 5.76 (3.04, 10.91) | 0.001 | 4.18 (1.41, 12.40) | 0.013 | |
Deprivation (reference: Least deprived) | |||||
2nd quartile | 0.83 (0.39, 1.77) | n.e | |||
3rd quartile | 0.57 (0.24, 1.33) | ||||
Most deprived | 1.27 (0.56, 2.90) | 0.570 | |||
Road density (reference: low) | |||||
High | 4.98 (2.99, 8.31) | 0.001 | n.i | ||
Street light density (reference: low) | |||||
High | 5.54 (2.84, 10.78) | 0.001 | n.i | ||
Junction density (reference: low) | |||||
High | 0.51 (0.32, 0.82) | 0.005 | n.i | ||
Effective walkable area (reference: low) | |||||
High | 0.48 (0.30, 0.78) | 0.003 | 2.00 (0.96, 4.15) | 0.063 | |
Land use mix (reference: low mix) | |||||
High mix | 0.43 (0.26, 0.69) | 0.001 | n.i | ||
Objective route environment | |||||
Route length between home and school (reference: >2km) | |||||
1-2km | 6.56 (3.61, 11.91) | 3.32 (1.52, 7.25) | |||
<1km | 13.25 (6.75,25.99) | 0.001 | 4.73 (1.97, 11.32) | 0.001 | |
Main road en route (reference: yes) | |||||
No | 0.44 (0.26, 0.72) | 0.001 | 0.73 (0.35, 1.53) | 0.403 | |
Route to school completely within an urban area (reference: no) | |||||
Yes | 8.66 (5.09, 14.75) | 0.001 | n.i | ||
Streetlight density on route (reference: low <4%) | |||||
High (<4%) | 2.48 (1.52, 4.03) | 0.001 | 1.33 (0.60, 2.95) | 0.482 | |
Route length ratio (reference: low) | |||||
High | 0.35 (0.20, 0.58) | 0.001 | 0.41 (0.19, 0.89) | 0.024 | |
Objective school environment | |||||
Walk to school initiative (reference: no) | |||||
Yes | 0.44 (-0.08, 0.95) | 0.103 | 0.82 (0.40, 1.68) | 0.581 | |
Walking provision (reference: low) | |||||
High | 1.43 (0.86, 2.38) | 0.242 | 0.89 (0.39, 2.02) | 0.783 | |
Cycling provision (reference: low) | |||||
High | 1.56 (0.98, 2.52) | 0.063 | 0.99 (0.50, 1.97) | 0.981 | |