Skip to main content

Table 3 Regression results for non-walking MVPA. Adjusteda within-person differences in non-walking moderate or vigorous physical activity (MVPA) minutes and change in activity status (became more active, became inactive), according to number of days used the program and used any type of bike. N = 1031

From: Changes in physical activity after joining a bikeshare program: a cohort of new bikeshare users

 

Negative binomial regression. Continuous outcome

Multinomial logistic regression. 3-category outcome (stayed the same 73.3%, became more active 15.2%, became inactive 11.5%)

Outcome 1. MVPA minutes at follow-up, controlling for baseline MVPA

Outcome 2A. Became more active vs. stayed the sameb

Outcome 2B. Became inactive vs. stayed the sameb

 

95% Confidence Interval

  

95% Confidence Interval

  

95% Confidence Interval

 

Exp(β)

Low

High

P-value

Exp(β)

Low

High

P-value

Exp(β)

Low

High

P-value

A. Exposure to bikeshare

 i. Exposure is continuous change in 10 days of program use c

 

1.29

1.26

1.31

0.014

1.02

0.99

1.04

0.198

0.94

0.89

0.99

0.029

ii. Categorical exposure, past year change days used the program d

  No use, zero days

Referent

Referent

Referent

  Low use, 1—< 15 days

0.68

0.50

0.92

0.014

1.45

0.83

2.52

0.189

1.54

0.88

2.71

0.133

  Higher use, 15 + days

1.03

0.76

1.40

0.835

1.80

1.05

3.09

0.033

0.64

0.35

1.18

0.154

B. Exposure to bikeshare or personal bike

i. Categorical exposure, change in recent bike use (past 30 day personal or bikeshare use) e

  No bike use at follow-up

Referent

Referent

Referent

  Bike use at baseline + follow-up

1.52

1.10

2.11

0.012

0.93

0.51

1.69

0.819

0.33

0.16

0.71

0.004

  New bike use at follow-up (not baseline)

1.50

1.15

1.96

0.003

1.04

0.67

1.61

0.848

0.55

0.32

0.97

0.039

  1. a Results adjusted for socio-demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, disadvantage, per capita income, household composition), number of cars, health status (presence of chronic illness, health status in past month), stayed at same residence, survey season, past 7 days weather, neighborhood biking infrastructure (stations, bikeability, distance to city hall), baseline bike use (personal or bikeshare)
  2. b “Inactive” in this table is defined as less than 10 min per week of non-walking MVPA. "More active" refers to not inactive
  3. c Past year program use at follow-up minus baseline. The model adjusted for all covariates listed above except for baseline program use; this aimed to improve interpretation, even though inference was unchanged
  4. d Bikeshare program use in the past 365 days between baseline and follow-up surveys had the following distribution: (1) no use N = 282 (27%), (2) one day to less than 15 days N = 306 (30%), (3) high use N = 443 (43%)
  5. e Any bike use in past 30 days had the following distribution: 1. no bike use at follow-up N = 598 (58%) (which was comprised of no bike use at baseline or follow-up [N = 474] + bike at baseline but not follow-up [N = 124]), 2. used bike at baseline and follow-up N = 198 (19%), and 3. used bike at follow-up but not at baseline N = 235 (23%)