Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations with school factors in partially adjusted multilevel linear regression models predicting changes in percentage of sedentary, moderate and vigorous physical activity (PA) during travel time (8–9, 15-16h)

From: School related factors and 1yr change in physical activity amongst 9–11 year old English schoolchildren

Exposure variables Percentage prevalence/mean (SD) Sedentary (% change) Moderate (% change) Vigorous (% change)
   β Coefficient (95% CI) β Coefficient (95% CI) β Coefficient (95% CI)
School characteristics     
  Location town fringe (y/n [reference: urban])a 34.4% −1.05 (−2.34 – 0.23) 0.59 (−0.23 – 1.41) 0.10 (−0.27 – 0.47)
  Location village/hamlet dwelling (y/n [reference: urban])a 27.5% 1.84 (0.62 – 3.07)++ −1.62 (−2.39 - -0.85)+++ −0.50 (−0.86 - -0.15)++
  Number of year 4 children in 2006 a 54.41 (34.29) −0.04 (−0.05 – -0.02)+++ 0.03 (0.02 – 0.04)+++ 0.01 (0.00 – 0.01)++
  Participation in healthy school program (y/n)a 36.1% 0.11 (−1.17 – 1.39) 0.05 (−0.76 – 0.86) 0.11 (−0.24 – 0.47)
School policy     
  Existence of …travel plan (y/n)b 87.1% 0.50 (−1.44 – 2.45) 0.31 (−0.90 – 1.53) 0.49 (−0.06 – 1.04)
         …walking bus (y/n)b 1.8% 0.60 (−3.65 – 4.84) 0.06 (−2.57 – 2.70) −0.41 (−1.62– 0.79)
         …park and stride (y/n)b 16.1% 0.54 (−1.06 – 2.14) −0.52 (−1.52 – 0.48) −0.11 (−0.57 – 0.34)
         … breakfast club (y/n)b 35.8% −0.33 (−1.59 – 0.93) 0.36 (−0.44 – 1.15) 0.18 (−0.17 – 0.54)
         … lollypop person (y/n)b 49.3% −1.74 (−2.91 – -0.57)++ 1.40 (0.67 – 2.12)+++ 0.37 (0.03 – 0.70)+
  Provide …physical activity information (y/n)b 87.4% −0.36 (−2.29 – 1.56) 0.30 (−0.91 – 1.51) 0.06 (−0.48 – 0.60)
      …health promotion information (y/n)b 78.3% 0.83 (−0.65 – 2.32) −0.13 (−1.08 – 0.82) 0.16 (−0.27 – 0.58)
      …risks of unhealthy lifestyle information (y/n)b 72.1% −0.39 (−1.77 – 0.98) 0.33 (−0.53 – 1.19) 0.15 (−0.24 – 0.53)
      … cycle training (y/n)b 93.7% −0.89 (−3.27 – 1.48) 0.95 (−0.52 – 2.41) 0.04 (−0.63 – 0.70)
      … pedestrian training (y/n)b 34.4% 1.34 (0.15 – 2.54)+ −1.28 (−2.02 – -0.54)++ −0.21 (−0.56 – 0.14)
  Extracurricular PA available before school (y/n)b 10.4% −0.37 (−2.46 – 1.72) 0.66 (−0.65 – 1.97) 0.25 (−0.33 – 0.82)
  Extracurricular PA available weekends (y/n)b 33.8% −1.77 (−3.03 – -0.51)++ 1.14 (0.34 – 1.94)++ 0.21 (−0.16 – 0.58)
School grounds     
  Existence of a bike rack (y/n)b 88.3% −1.12 (−2.99 – 0.74) 0.97 (−0.19 – 2.13) −0.05 (−0.58 – 0.48)
  Existence of an entrance for pedestrians/cyclists only (y/n)b 70.0% 0.27 (−1.08 – 1.61) −0.11 (−0.94 – 0.72) 0.02 (−0.36 – 0.41)
  Playground area (km2)b 11.82 (7.38) −0.08 (−0.16 – 0.00) 0.05 (−0.00 – 0.10) 0.01 (−0.02 – 0.03)
  School ground score (min: 1, max: 10)c 9.14 (0.80) −0.18 (−0.96 – 0.60) 0.08 (−0.41 – 0.57) −0.10 (−0.32 – 0.13)
  Walking access score (max: 5)c 2.24 (0.74) −0.49 (−1.30 – 0.33) 0.44 (−0.07 – 0.96) 0.26 (0.04 – 0.48)+
  Cycling access score (max: 9)c 3.70 (1.25) −0.60 (−1.06 – -0.14)+ 0.48 (0.19 – 0.76)++ 0.11 (−0.02 – 0.25)
  Aesthetics score (min: 3, max: 28)c 21.54 (2.24) 0.14 (−0.13 – 0.41) −0.12 (−0.29 – 0.05) −0.02 (−0.10 – 0.06)
School neighbourhood     
  Existence of …heavy traffic (y/n)b 27.2% −1.19 (−2.40 – 0.02) 0.76 (−0.00 – 1.52) 0.26 (−0.09 – 0.60)
         …pathways near school (y/n)b 84.4% −1.06 (−2.65 – 0.54) 0.89 (−0.11 – 1.89) −0.04 (−0.50 – 0.42)
         …safe places to cross roads (y/n)b 34.6% −1.76 (−3.01 – -0.52)++ 1.33 (0.53 – 2.12)++ 0.66 (0.32 – 1.00)+++
  Cars drive slowly (y/n)b 18.6% 1.48 (−0.01 – 2.98) −0.70 (−1.64 – 0.24) 0.07 (−0.37 – 0.50)
  Streets are safe to walk or ride (y/n)b 30.4% 0.58 (−0.73 – 1.89) −0.37 (−1.20 – 0.45) 0.11 (−0.27 – 0.48)
  Streets are free from rubbish (y/n)b 69.8% 0.88 (−0.46 – 2.22) −0.53 (−1.39 – 0.32) −0.26 (−0.63 – 0.12)
  Easy to get to school by foot (y/n)b 77.5% −1.30 (−2.70 – 0.10) 0.70 (−0.20 – 1.59) 0.20 (−0.20 – 0.60)
  Number of PA facilities per km2 d 2.69 (2.84) −0.19 (−0.39 – 0.02) 0.17 (0.04 – 0.30)++ 0.05 (−0.01 – 0.11)
  Percentage of accessible land d 1.90 (5.33) 0.00 (−0.10 – 0.11) −0.01 (−0.07 – 0.06) 0.00 (−0.03 – 0.03)
  Number of traffic accidents per km of road d 1.88 (1.76) −0.30 (−0.63 – 0.02) 0.31 (0.10 – 0.51)++ 0.11 (0.02 – 0.20)+
  Proportion of roads that are A roads d 0.06 (0.08) −6.27 (−13.63 – 1.08) 3.02 (−1.69 – 7.73) 1.44 (−0.63 – 3.51)
  m2 verge per m of road d 1.85 (0.93) 0.31 (−0.31 – 0.94) −0.42 (−0.81 – -0.03)+ −0.19 (−0.36 – -0.02)+
  Effective walkable area ratio d 0.52 (0.13) 3.67 (−1.01 – 8.35) −2.30 (−5.25 – 0.66) −0.41 (−1.74 – 0.92)
  Connected node ratio d 0.71 (0.09) 7.83 (1.49 – 14.18)+ −4.23 (−8.32 – -0.13)+ −0.01 (−1.88 – 1.86)
  Herfindahl-hirschman index d 2.72 (1.08) 0.56 (0.04 – 1.08)+ −0.38 (−0.70 – -0.05)+ −0.20 (−0.35 – -0.06)++
  1. + p<0.05; ++ p<0.01; +++ p<0.001.
  2. All models were adjusted for sex, age, BMI, parental education, ethnicity and the baseline value of physical activity.
  3. a Factors derived by the Norfolk County Council (%=yes); b Factors derived by the school questionnaire (%=yes); c Factors derived by the audit tool; minimum score = 0 unless stated otherwise; d Factors derived by GIS.