Table 4 Logistic regression analyses exploring the odds of remaining an active traveller
Minimally adjusted model OR | Maximally adjusted model OR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(95% CI) | p | (95% CI) | p | |||
Child characteristics | Gender | |||||
Female (reference: male) | 0.96 (0.53, 1.72) | 0.887 | 0.88 (0.45, 1.72) | 0.716 | ||
Weight status | ||||||
Overweight/Obese (reference: normal) | 0.62 (0.33, 1.19) | 0.152 | 0.60 (0.29, 1.24) | 0.165 | ||
Parent characteristics | Age parent/carer left full-time education | |||||
< 16 years (reference: >16 years) | 1.09 (0.61, 1.94) | 0.765 | n.e | |||
Social environment for active travel | Children walk or cycle to non-school destination at least once a week (reference: no) | |||||
Yes | 1.44 (0.78, 2.68) | 0.246 | 1.42 (0.69, 2.91) | 0.338 | ||
Composite rules score (reference: no rules)* | ||||||
Mid (score = 1) | 0.90 (0.10, 8.01) | 0.481 | n.e | |||
High (score = 2) | 0.68 (0.09, 5.40) | |||||
Convenient to take the car (reference: yes) | ||||||
No | 10.74 (5.03, 22.92) | 0.001 | 5.43 (1.95, 15.13) | 0.001 | ||
Around to take child to school (reference: no) | ||||||
Yes | 1.08 (0.56, 2.07) | 0.823 | n.e | |||
Parental and peer encouragement (reference: neither) | ||||||
Parental or peer encouragement for AT | 0.87 (0.41, 1.85) | |||||
Parental and peer encouragement for AT | 1.14 (0.50, 2.59) | 0.754 | n.e | |||
Physical environment for active commuting | Perceptions of the environment | |||||
Route safety (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 2.05 (1.06, 3.98) | 0.032 | 1.49 (0.66, 3.37) | 0.334 | ||
Neighbourhood social cohesion score (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.41 (0.80, 2.51) | 0.238 | 1.73 (0.90, 3.33) | 0.102 | ||
Neighbourhood environment score (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.32 (0.74, 2.36) | 0.345 | n.e | |||
Safe to walk/play alone in my neighbourhood during the day (reference: no) | ||||||
Yes | 1.14 (0.60, 2.17) | 0.669 | n.e | |||
Objective neighbourhood environment | ||||||
Urban rural status (reference: village and hamlet) | ||||||
Town and fringe | 1.45 (0.69, 3.05) | |||||
Urban | 1.29 (0.63, 2.62) | 0.486 | n.e | |||
Deprivation (reference: Least deprived) | ||||||
2nd quartile | 0.50 (0.22, 1.18) | |||||
3rd quartile | 0.61 (0.24, 1.57) | |||||
Most deprived | 0.60 (0.23, 1.57) | 0.473 | n.e | |||
Road density (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.59 (0.89, 2.82) | 0.116 | 1.15 (0.57, 2.33) | 0.693 | ||
Street light density (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.12 (0.55, 2.27) | 0.762 | n.e | |||
Junction density (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.00 (0.56, 1.78) | 0.996 | n.e | |||
Effective walkable area (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 0.99 (0.56, 1.76) | 0.977 | n.e | |||
Land use mix (reference: low mix) | ||||||
High mix | 1.26 (0.70, 2.26) | 0.449 | n.e | |||
Objective route environment | ||||||
Route length between home and school (reference: >2km) | ||||||
1-2km | 2.46 (1.12, 5.43) | 1.24 (0.46, 3.39) | ||||
<1km | 6.32 (2.89, 13.85) | 0.001 | 2.80 (0.98, 7.96) | 0.020 | ||
Main road en route (reference: yes) | ||||||
No | 0.92 (0.46, 1.83) | 0.814 | n.e | |||
Route to school completely within an urban area (reference: no) | ||||||
Yes | 2.71 (1.48, 4.95) | 0.001 | 1.12 (0.49, 2.55) | 0.790 | ||
Streetlight density on route (reference: low <4%) | ||||||
High (<4%) | 0.80 (0.45, 1.42) | 0.439 | n.e | |||
Route length ratio (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 0.85 (0.46, 1.56) | 0.602 | n.e | |||
Objective school environment | ||||||
Walk to school initiative (reference: no) | ||||||
Yes | 1.23 (0.69, 2.21) | 0.470 | n.e | |||
Walking provision (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.41 (0.77, 2.58) | 0.258 | n.e | |||
Cycling provision (reference: low) | ||||||
High | 1.03 (0.57, 1.87) | 0.911 | n.e | |||