Neighborhood safety and physical inactivity in adults from Curitiba, Brazil

Table 3 Adjusted association between physical inactivity and safety in the neighborhood in adults

Variable	Category	Physical inactivity
		Walking for leisure ^a			MVPA ^b			Walking for commuting ^c
		%	PR (CI95%)	p	%	PR (CI95%)	p	%	PR (CI95%)	p
Safety from crime
	Safe	60.5	1.00		71.3	1.00		30.3	1.00
	Unsafe	62.2	0.99 (0.94–1.06)	0.858	66.7	1.05 (0.98–1.13)	0.104	29.3	1.11 (0.77–1.60)	0.506
Is safe walk during the day
	Safe	61.2	1.00		68.5	1.00		30.2	1.00
	Unsafe	62.2	1.03 (0.95–1.11)	0.363	71.6	0.99 (0.90–1.09)	0.821	27.9	0.96 (0.69–1.34)	0.387
Is safe walk during at night
	Safe	62.3	1.00		62.9	1.00		38.2	1.00
	Unsafe	61.1	0.97 (0.82–1.15)	0.741	70.8	1.04 (0.90–1.22)	0.463	27.4	0.73 (0.57–0.94)	0.023
Scale of neighborhood safety
	0 (more safe)	69.2	1.00	0.905*	73.8	1.00	0.271*	58.5	1.00	0.491*
	1	60.4	1.05 (0.84–1.30)	0.610	66.7	1.14 (0.93–1.40)	0.171	28.5	0.98 (0.61–1.57)	0.929
	2	61.9	0.97 (0.81–1.17)	0.734	71.1	1.12 (0.91–1.36)	0.228	28.1	0.87 (0.52–1.44)	0.525
	3 (less safe)	56.4	1.06 (0.94–1.19)	0.275	69.2	1.11 (0.89–1.37)	0.271	25.6	0.94 (0.58–1.52)	0.766

Curitiba, Brazil (n = 1,262).
PA: physical activity.
MVPA: moderate and vigorous PA.
^aAdjusted for sex, age, SES, private transport use and home facilities to PA.
^bAdjusted for sex, age, nutritional status, SES, marital status, children, private transport use and home facilities to PA.
^cAdjusted for sex, age, SES, marital status, private transport use.
*p trend.

ISSN: 1479-5868