Skip to main content

Table 7 Assessment of confounding to associations between built and socioeconomic environment factor score quartiles and weekly bouts of MVPA [exp(coeff)]1, Females (n = 8,626)

From: Built and socioeconomic environments: patterning and associations with physical activity in U.S. adolescents

 

exp(coefficient) (95% CI) [change in coefficient2]

Quartile [median (range)]

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Homogenous landscape score

    

1 [-0.86 (-1.43, -0.68)]

1

1

1

1

2 [-0.49 (-0.68, -0.27)]

1.03 (0.98, 1.09)

1.04 (0.99, 1.09)

1.04 (0.98, 1.09)

1.03 (0.98, 1.09)

3 [0.00 (-0.27, 0.35)]

1.00 (0.96, 1.05)

1.02 (0.98, 1.07)

1.02 (0.97, 1.07)

1.02 (0.97, 1.06)

4 [1.04 (0.35, 5.46)]

1.00 (0.95, 1.05)

1.03 (0.97, 1.09)

1.03 (0.98, 1.10)

1.03 (0.97, 1.09)

Intensity (pay facilities) score

    

1 [-0.82 (-1.45, -0.68)]

1

1

1

1

2[-0.51 (-0.68, -0.25)]

0.98 (0.94, 1.03)

0.97 (0.92, 1.02)

0.97 (0.91, 1.02)

0.97 (0.92, 1.03) [-11%]

3 [-0.01 (-0.25, 0.37)]

1.01 (0.96, 1.07)

0.99 (0.93, 1.05)

0.98 (0.93, 1.04)

0.99 (0.93, 1.05)

4 [0.94 (0.37, 14.31)]

0.93 (0.88, 0.99)*

0.91 (0.85, 0.98)* [33%]

0.91 (0.84, 0.98)* [4%]

0.92 (0.85, 0.99)* [-8%]

Intensity (public facilities) score

    

1 [-0.75 (-1.25, -0.67)]

1

1

1

1

2 [-0.59 (-0.67, -0.40)]

0.97 (0.91, 1.03)

0.96 (0.91, 1.02) [17%]

0.97 (0.91, 1.03)

0.97 (0.92, 1.03) [-23%]

3 [-0.06 (-0.40, 0.41)]

0.99 (0.93, 1.05)

1.02 (0.95, 1.09)

1.02 (0.96, 1.09)

1.04 (0.98, 1.11) [159%]

4 [1.14 (0.41, 10.26)]

0.96 (0.90, 1.03)

1.02 (0.95, 1.10)

1.03 (0.96, 1.12)

1.06 (0.98, 1.14) [173%]

Street Connectivity (alpha)

    

1 [0.17 (-8.00, 0.21)]

1

1

1

1

2 [0.26 (0.21, 0.30)]

0.98 (0.92, 1.05)

0.98 (0.92, 1.05)

0.99 (0.92, 1.06)

0.99 (0.92, 1.06)

3 [0.33 (0.30, 0.38)]

0.99 (0.93, 1.05)

0.99 (0.93, 1.06)

1.00 (0.94, 1.07)

1.01 (0.94, 1.07)

4 [0.45 (0.38, 8.00)]

0.92 (0.86, 0.98)*

0.90 (0.84, 0.97)* [15%]

0.92 (0.85, 0.99)* [-14%]

0.92 (0.86, 0.99)* [-22%]

Advantageous socioeconomic/economic environment score3

    

1 [-1.07 (-2.65, -0.71)]

  

1

1

2 [-0.30 (-0.70, 0.02)]

  

1.03 (0.97, 1.08)

0.99 (0.93, 1.04)

3 [0.22 (0.02, 0.55)]

  

1.07 (1.00, 1.14)

1.02 (0.96, 1.09)

4 [0.89 (0.55, 5.32)]

  

1.06 (0.99, 1.14)

1.02 (0.96, 1.09)

Disadvantageous social environment score

    

1 [-0.88 (-1.36, -0.61)]

   

1

2 [-0.36 (-0.61, -0.15)]

   

0.99 (0.94, 1.04)

3 [0.12 (-0.14, 0.43)]

   

0.91 (0.86, 0.97)*

4 [1.15 (0.44, 4.11)]

   

0.91 (0.84, 0.98)*

  1. 1National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Wave I (1995-96). Based on sex-stratified negative binomial regression models; value represents proportion increase in MVPA bouts. Referent category is lowest quartile.
  2. *Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
  3. 2Change in coefficient reflects change in coefficient [(current model -previous model)/previous model]*100 for built environment characteristics only. Model 4 coefficients are compared to Model 2 coefficients. Change in estimates were omitted if both coefficients were <±0.04. Negative percent changes indicate attenuation of the association.
  4. 3In Model 3, denotes the 1-dimensional neighborhood SES factor; in model 4, denotes the Advantageous economic environment factor of the 2-dimensional neighborhood SES solution. Ranges for 1-dimensional factor quartiles: (1) -1.12 (-3.85, -0.64); (2) -0.13 (-0.64, 0.17); (3) 0.42 (0.17, 0.56); (4) 0.89 (0.56, 4.09)
  5. Model 1: Built environment characteristics separately, adjusted for individual-level sociodemographics (age, race, parental education, household income, region)
  6. Model 2: Built environment characteristics in the same model, adjusted for individual-level sociodemographics
  7. Model 3: Built environment characteristics in the same model, adjusted for individual-level sociodemographics and 1-dimensional neighborhood SES factor
  8. Model 4: Built environment characteristics in the same model, adjusted for individual-level sociodemographics and for 2-dimensional neighborhood SES factor