Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between previous cycle training and children’s cycling behaviour across the study population (N = 3336)

From: Impact of offering cycle training in schools upon cycling behaviour: a natural experimental study

Outcome Whether child had done cycle training Percentage (95 % CI) Unadjusted analysis (risk ratio, 95 % CI) Adjusted analysis (risk ratio, 95 % CI)
Child cycles at least once a week Untrained 41.5 (38.9, 44.2) 1 1
Trained 55.0 (52.8, 57.2) 1.27 (1.17, 1.39) 1.26 (1.16, 1.37)
Child ever cycles Untrained 73.0 (70.6, 75.4) 1 1
Trained 92.7 (91.4, 93.8) 1.23 (1.18, 1.28) 1.20 (1.15, 1.25)
Child usually travels to school by bike Untrained 1.9 (1.2, 2.8) 1 1
Trained 3.4 (2.7, 4.3) 1.62 (0.99, 2.67) 1.38 (0.83, 2.29)
Child makes local bike trips independentlya Untrained 43.3 (40.6, 45.9) 1 1
Trained 56.7 (54.5, 58.9) 1.23 (1.13, 1.34) 1.21 (1.11, 1.32)
  1. All p < 0.001 for association. Analyses based on our study population of 3336 children, of whom 1378 were untrained, 1956 trained and 2 had missing data (imputed using multiple imputation). Adjusted analyses adjusted for all variables shown in Table 1 (with the local prevalence of cycling to work entered as a continuous variable), and also for the region of England that the child lived in and the season of data collection
  2. CI confidence interval
  3. a Defined as ever making local, non-school bicycle trips without an adult, either on their own or with other children
\