Table 4.
Difference of differences analysis for the observation data (with control parks) and Propensity score analysis for self-reported data (with control parks)
| Difference of differences analysis for the observation data | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variable | Parameter estimate (S.E.) |
P value |
| Model 1 (Observation of users) | ||
| Intercept Comparison parks at baseline | 919.1 (174) | .0001 |
| Fitness Zone Parks at baseline | −305.3 (247) | .23 |
| Change in users in comparison parks | −14.3 (141) | .92 |
| Change in users in Fitness Zone parks | 207.3 (199) | .31 |
| Model 2 (Expenditure of METS) | ||
| Intercept (comparison parks at baseline) | 2191 (425) | .0001 |
| Fitness Zone baseline | −687 (601) | .27 |
| Change in METS for the comparison parks | −100 (350) | .78 |
| Change in METS at Fitness Zone parks | 685 (496) | .18 |
| Propensity score analysis: self-reported exercise and park use | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average # exercise sessions/week |
New user in the past 6 months (%) |
New user in the past one month (%) |
Uses park use 1x/week or more(%) |
|||||
| Control parks |
FZ parks |
Control parks |
FZ parks | Control parks |
FZ parks | Control parks |
FZ parks |
|
| Baseline | 2.13 | 2.36 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 85.3 | 79.3 |
| 1st follow- up |
2.17 | 2.50 (p=.49) |
6.0 | 11.4 (p=.014) |
2.6 | 6.3 (p=.007) |
81.2 | 81.6 (p=.081) |