Table 3:
Associations of usual park visitation in the last month (frequency and duration) with social connectedness and well-being
| Social connectedness scoreb | Well-being scorec | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B (95% CI)a | p-value | B (95% CI)a | p-value | |
| Park visitation | ||||
| No (ref) | — | — | ||
| Yes | −3.75 (−7.11, −0.39) | 0.029 | 3.92 (1.24, 6.60) | 0.004 |
| Park visit frequency | ||||
| <1/week (ref) | — | — | ||
| 1/week | −3.64 (−7.86, 0.57) | 0.091 | 3.90 (0.53, 7.21) | 0.023 |
| >1/week | −3.67 (−7.79, 0.45) | 0.081 | 4.19 (0.90, 7.49) | 0.013 |
| Park visit duration (h/week) | −0.11 (−1.50, 1.27) | 0.871 | 0.90 (-0.21, 2.00) | 0.111 |
Significant associations (p < 0.05) are bolded. All models adjusted for: age group (adolescents, adults and older adults), sex (male, female, other/prefer not to say), area-level disadvantage (T1, T2 and T3), lockdown-impacted areas of residence (metropolitan Victoria, regional Victoria and other states), dog ownership (yes or no), employment status (employed and not employed).
B, unstandardized coefficient/regression coefficient; Ref, reference variable.
aMultilevel linear regression with interpretation using unstandardized coefficients.
bPossible range 0–100: a higher score indicates a higher level of social connectedness.
cPossible range 0–100: a higher score reflects a higher level of well-being (0 = absence of well-being, 100 = optimal well-being).