Table 3.
Ecological analyses of correlates of dog walking among adolescents who live in households with dogs and walk the dog ≥1 day/week vs do not walk the dog in the Seattle and Baltimore regions. Ecological analyses of correlates of dog walking among adolescents who walk the dog ≥1 day a week
| Walk at all (≥1 day/week) vs. none (n=484) | Number of days/week walking dog (1–7) (n=300) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p | B | 95% CI | p | |
| Intercept (with centered variables): | 1.85 | 1.25, 2.72 | -- | 3.47 | 3.15, 3.99 | -- |
| Demographic Characteristics (Model 1) | ||||||
| Adolescent Age (years) | 1.15 | 0.79, 1.67 | .473 | −0.07 | −0.23, 0.09 | .390 |
| Adolescent Gender (Male) | 0.92 | 0.81, 1.06 | .239 | 0.02 | −0.41, 0.46 | .923 |
| Adolescent White Non-Hispanic | 1.01 | 0.66, 1.56 | .963 | −0.24 | −0.76, 0.28 | .362 |
| Parent married/living with a partner | 0.80 | 0.45, 1.40 | .423 | −0.46 | −1.08, 0.16 | .148 |
| Parent with college degree | 1.27 | 0.82, 1.97 | .518 | 0.69 | 0.16, 1.22 | .012 |
| House type (single family) | 0.77 | 0.36, 1.69 | .518 | −1.44 | −2.27, −0.60 | .001 |
| Psychosocial Characteristics (Model 2)a | ||||||
| Confidence in ability to do PA (self-efficacy) [1–5] | 1.19 | 0.93, 1.52 | .171 | 0.11 | −0.16, 0.38 | .430 |
| Decisional balance: (pros of PA - cons of PA) [−1–3] | 0.99 | 0.73, 1.34 | .939 | −0.08 | −0.41, 0.25 | .640 |
| Enjoyment of PA [1–5] | 0.17 | 0.92, 1.60 | .166 | 0.06 | −0.28, 0.40 | .737 |
| Home Environment (Model 3)a | ||||||
| Portable electronics ownership index [0–4] | 1.34 | 1.07, 1.67 | .011 | 0.04 | −0.23, 0.34 | .712 |
| Electronic items/things in bedroom index [0–6] | 1.01 | 0.90, 1.14 | .861 | 0.004 | −0.13, 0.14 | .957 |
| Activity rules index [0–14] | 0.99 | 0.92, 1.05 | .663 | −0.03 | −0.11, 0.04 | .411 |
| Perceived neighborhood environment (Models 4–5)a | ||||||
| Model 4: Parents NEWS | ||||||
| Aesthetics [1–4] | 1.31 | 0.95, 1.80 | .095 | 0.26 | −0.11, 0.63 | .169 |
| Traffic Safety [1–4] | 1.20 | 0.83, 1.73 | .326 | 0.08 | −0.32, 0.49 | .683 |
| Pedestrian Safety [1–4] | 1.05 | 0.77, 1.42 | .766 | −0.03 | −0.09, 0.47 | .888 |
| Low Crime Risk [1–4] | 0.95 | 0.75, 1.21 | .690 | 0.19 | −0.09, 0.47 | .186 |
| Low Stranger Dangers [1–4] | 0.91 | 0.67, 1.23 | .518 | −0.10 | −0.45, 0.24 | .559 |
| Model 5: Adolescent NEWS | ||||||
| Traffic Safety [1–4] | 0.91 | 0.65, 1.27 | .581 | −0.32 | −0.71, 0.07 | .107 |
| Pedestrian Safety [1–4] | 1.16 | 0.79, 1.70 | .447 | 0.13 | −0.31, 0.57 | .550 |
| Low Crime Risk [1–4] | 1.07 | 0.84, 1.37 | .588 | 0.005 | −0.27, 0.28 | .973 |
| Low Stranger Dangers [1–4] | 1.08 | 0.79, 1.49 | .629 | −0.11 | −0.47, 0.26 | .568 |
| Objective neighborhood environment (Models 6–7)a | ||||||
| Model 6: Built environment characteristics | ||||||
| Number parks [parks/sq km] | 1.03 | 0.90, 1.18 | .659 | −0.06 | −0.20, 0.09 | .426 |
| Residential density [housing units/parcel] | 0.96 | 0.91, 1.01 | .109 | 0.01 | −0.05, 0.07 | .788 |
| Street Connectivity [intersections/sq km] | 1.01 | 1.0, 1.02 | .221 | 0.01 | 0, 0.02 | .038 |
| Retail floor area ratio [building:parcel sq ft] | 2.13 | 0.54, 8.42 | .279 | −0.24 | −1.68, 1.20 | .745 |
| Mixed use [0=single 1=mixed] | 4.20 | 1.33, 13.23 | .014 | −1.29 | −2.41, −0.17 | .024 |
| Model 7: Walkability | ||||||
| Walkability index | 1.11 | 1.03, 1.20 | .009 | −0.01 | −0.10, 0.07 | .794 |
a
Models 2–7 controlled for adolescent age, gender, race/ethnicity, parent marital status, parent education and house type B denotes unstandardized regression coefficient.