| Literature DB >> 21777414 |
Mariëlle A Beenackers1, Carlijn B M Kamphuis, Alex Burdorf, Johan P Mackenbach, Frank J van Lenthe.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the interaction between individual and environmental determinants of physical activity, although this may be important information for the development of effective interventions. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether perceived neighborhood safety modifies associations between individual cognitions and sports participation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21777414 PMCID: PMC3197469 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-76
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Characteristics of the GLOBE study respondents living in the city of Eindhoven.
| Samplea | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2474 | 100 | |
| Male | 1168 | 47.2 |
| Female | 1306 | 52.8 |
| 53.1 (25-75) | ||
| 25-34 | 340 | 13.7 |
| 35-44 | 409 | 16.5 |
| 45-54 | 413 | 16.7 |
| 55-64 | 668 | 27.0 |
| 65-75 | 644 | 26.0 |
| 1 Low | 243 | 9.8 |
| 2 | 890 | 36.0 |
| 3 | 571 | 23.1 |
| 4 High | 770 | 31.1 |
| Netherlands | 2253 | 91.1 |
| Other | 221 | 8.9 |
| Yes | 1308 | 47.1 |
| No | 1166 | 52.9 |
a. The numbers and percentages presented are unweighted and are therefore a representation of the actual numbers in the dataset.
Crude and adjusted logistic regression analyses for sports participation.
| Crude | Adjusteda | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude (1-5) | 3.76 (0.54) | ||||
| Self-efficacy (1-5) | 3.82 (0.91) | ||||
| Social influence (1-3) | 2.28 (0.59) | ||||
| Intention (1-5) | 4.04 (1.02) | ||||
| Safety high (safe) | 60.6% | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Safety medium | 31.8% | ||||
| Safety low (unsafe) | 7.6% | ||||
a. Models were adjusted for age, sex, educational level and country of origin.
b. * = p < .050, ** = p < .010, *** = p < .001
Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models with OR and 95% CI for sports participation.
| Model 1a | Model 2a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | ORb | 95% CI | ORb | 95% CI |
| Safety high (safe) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Safety medium | 0.90 | 0.74-1.09 | 0.90 | 0.74-1.09 |
| Safety low (unsafe) | ||||
| Attitude (1-5)c | ||||
| Self-efficacy (1-5)c | ||||
| Social influence (1-3)c | ||||
| Intention (1-5)c | ||||
| | ||||
| Safety high * attitude | 1.00e | |||
| Safety medium * attitude | 0.69e | 0.44-1.07 | ||
| Safety low * attitude | ||||
| | ||||
| Safety high * self-efficacy | 1.00e | |||
| Safety medium * self-efficacy | 1.03e | 0.79-1.33 | ||
| Safety low * self-efficacy |
a. Models were adjusted for age, sex, educational level and country of origin
b. * = p < .050, ** = p < .010, *** = p < .001
c. The individual cognitions were centered around it's mean for analytical and interpretational purposes.
d. The OR of attitude and self-efficacy in model 2 represent the ORs of these two variables in a neighborhood perceived as safe (the reference category).
e. The parameters of the interaction terms should be interpreted as multiplicative factors. E.g.: to obtain the OR for self-efficacy for people who perceive their neighborhood as unsafe, one has to multiply the OR for the relevant interaction term (OR = 1.55) with the OR of self-efficacy (OR = 1.19). The calculated ORs for attitude and self-efficacy for each of the safety categories can be found in figure 1. More information on the interpretation of these parameters can be found in the method section.
Figure 1OR and 95% CI for attitude and self-efficacy for three levels of perceived neighborhood safety. The ORs were calculated by multiplying the OR of the individual cognition by the OR of the relevant interaction term (both derived from model 2 in table 3 which is adjusted for age, sex, educational level, country of origin, and all other individual cognitions).