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