Table 4.

Odds Ratios (OR) for negative as compared to better effect of the pandemic on well-being ^{a, b, c, d}

Variable (reference category)	B (SE)	OR (95% CI)	p value
Constant	-1.22 (0.44)	3.40 (1.50–8.41)	< 0.01
Gender (Female)
Male	-0.48 (0.39)	0.62 (0.28–1.33)	0.23
Age (18–34)
35–54	-0.75 (0.48)	0.47 (0.18–1.20)	0.12
55+	-1.74 (0.51)	0.18 (0.06–0.47)	< 0.001
Obesity (Not obese)
Obese	0.77 (0.49)	2.15 (0.84–5.75)	0.11
Long-term conditions (No)
Yes	0.79 (0.37)	2.20 (1.09–4.63)	< 0.05
Weekly gardening time (0 h)
1–5 h	-0.53 (0.46)	0.59 (0.24–1.46)	0.25
6–10 h	-0.92 (0.53)	0.40 (0.14–1.11)	0.08
11 + hours	-1.53 (0.57)	0.22 (0.07–0.64)	< 0.01

^a ‘Negative’ self-reported effect of the covid-19 pandemic refers to responses of ‘very negative’ or ‘somewhat negative’, while ‘better’ includes responses of ‘neutral’, ‘somewhat positive’ or ‘very positive’

^b Predictors and regression coefficients in the table are derived from the best fit model for the outcome based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Other explanatory variables tested include neighbourhood deprivation, household income, household composition, caring responsibilities, higher education, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity level, F&V intake, food growing, and having an allotment, but these were dropped in the process of improving model fit

^c Model R² = 0.18 (Hosmer Lemeshow), 0.22 (Cox and Snell), 0.30 (Nagelkerke); χ² (8) = 46.94

^d Figures in bold are statistically significant at the 5% level (p < 0.05)