Skip to main content

Table 2 Estimates for models of the associations between park environment, neighbourhood income, and park-based MVPA among adolescents (n = 2397)

From: Park environment and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in parks among adolescents in a high-density city: the moderating role of neighbourhood income

Parameter Model 1 Model 2
Estimate SE 95% CI p Estimate SE 95% CI p
Fixed effects         
Covariates         
 Gender (ref = Boy) − 6.98 1.58 − 10.08 to − 3.89  < .001 − 6.88 1.57 − 9.96 to − 3.81  < .001
 Time periods (ref = Morning)         
  Noon − 1.22 3.12 − 7.33 to 4.88 .695 − 2.18 3.11 − 8.27 to 3.91 .483
  Afternoon 1.12 2.99 − 4.74 to 6.97 .709 − 0.42 2.99 − 6.29 to 5.44 .887
  Evening 6.34 2.91 0.64 to 12.03 .029 5.06 2.90 − 0.62 to 10.74 .001
 Week types (ref = Weekday) 3.16 1.44 0.32 to 5.99 .029 2.85 1.43 0.05 to 5.65 .046
 Formality of PA (ref = Individual)         
  Informal group activities 9.46 1.78 5.97 to 12.96  < .001 9.68 1.77 6.21 to 13.15  < .001
  Formally organized events 42.72 12.32 18.57 to 66.86 .001 41.56 12.15 17.75 to 65.38 .001
 Supervision in PA (ref = No supervision)        
  Teachers/coaches 7.28 2.57 2.26 to 12.31 .005 7.32 2.56 2.30 to 12.35 .004
  Parents/guardians/caregivers − 12.18 3.32 − 18.68 to − 5.68  < .001 − 10.70 3.27 − 17.11 to − 4.29 .001
 Temperature − 0.30 0.24 − 0.78 to 0.17 .204 0.18 0.30 − 0.41 to 0.76 .552
 Neighbourhood quality 0.96 1.02 − 1.04 to 2.96 .349 3.06 1.94 − 0.74 to 6.87 .115
 Walkability 0.67 0.86 − 1.01 to 2.35 .437 2.14 1.31 − 0.44 to 4.71 .104
 Park size 0.24 0.21 − 0.17 to 0.66 .250 − 0.28 0.27 − 0.82 to 0.25 .299
Park environment         
 Diversity of active facilities − 0.92 0.62 − 2.12 to 0.29 .135 − 2.29 1.65 − 5.52 to 0.94 .165
 Quality of supporting amenities 1.90 0.85 0.23 to 3.56 .025 3.15 3.58 − 3.87 to 10.16 .379
 Park safety 4.15 1.19 1.82 to 6.48  < .001 17.45 5.94 5.80 to 29.10 .003
 Park aesthetics − 1.94 0.81 − 3.52 to − 0.35 .017 4.53 3.71 − 2.75 to 11.81 .223
 Greenness − 0.72 0.05 − 0.16 to 0.02 .140 − 0.32 0.23 − 0.78 to 0.14 .179
Neighbourhood income − 3.02 1.20 − 5.36 to − 0.67 .012 19.08 15.67 − 11.63 to 49.79 .223
Interaction terms         
 Diversity of active facilities × Neighb. income      0.39 0.58 − 0.74 to 1.52 .497
 Quality of supporting amenities × Neighb.income      0.15 1.48 − 2.76 to 3.05 .920
 Park safety × Neighb. income      − 5.27 2.08 − 9.36 to − 1.19 .011
 Park aesthetics × Neighb. income      − 3.24 1.50 − 6.18 to − 0.30 .031
 Greenness × Neighb. income      0.10 0.08 − 0.07 to 0.26 .241
Random variancea         
Residual 289.83 16.21 259.74 to 323.41 281.04 15.31 252.58 to 312.70
Intercept (Urban parks) 1.74 4.67 0.01 to 329.68 1.08e−14 1.07e−13 4.31e−23 to 2.70e−06
Goodness of fit         
−2 Log Likelihood 5737.42 5,713.07
  1. 95% CI  95% confidence interval, MVPA  moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, Neighb.income  neighbourhood income, PA physical activity, SE  standard error
  2. aIn the null model, −2 Log Likelihood = 6063.43. Variance Park = 45.02, 95% CI = [21.79, 93.04]. Variance Residual = 326.32, 95% CI = [293.40, 362.94]. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 45.02/ (45.02 + 326.32) = 0.121
  3. – Since zero was not within its 95% CI, the statistical significance was below than .05