Table 6.

^aEstimates from regression analyses for frequency (n_trips/wk)^b and duration (hr/wk)^c of walking for transportation

			Frequency (ntrips/wk)						Duration (hr/wk)
	Crude				Adjusted		Crude				Adjusted
			Model 2e		Model 3f				Model 4e		Model 5h
Predictor	(n = 124)d IRR (95% CI)	P	(n =124) IRR (95% CI)	P	(n =121) IRR (95% CI)	P	(n = 124)g β (95% CI)	P	(n = 124) β (95% CI)	P	(n = 112) β (95% CI)	P
Street Smart Walk Score (10-point change)	1.06 (1.01, 1.10)*	0.013	1.06 (1.01, 1.11)*	0.011	1.03 (0.98, 1.08)	0.206	−0.01 (−0.23, 0.21)	0.920	−0.01 (−0.23, 0.21)	0.956	−0.01 (−0.27, 0.25)	0.935
Women	0.89 (0.74, 1.07)	0.228	0.89 (0.74, 1.08)	0.237	0.87 (0.72, 1.06)	0.181	−0.69 (−1.71, 0.34)	0.187	−0.68 (−1.71, 0.35)	0.196	−0.81 (−1.89, 0.28)	0.145
Age (10-year change)	0.94 (0.81, 1.09)	0.437	0.93 (0.80, 1.08)	0.354	1.04 (0.89, 1.23)	0.608	−0.21 (−1.02, 0.60)	0.613	−0.19 (−1.00, 0.62)	0.643	0.12 (−0.76, 1.00)	0.786
Vehicle available	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.98 (−1.97, 0.01)	0.053	-	-	−0.68 (−1.78, 0.41)	0.217
Crimei	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.79 (−1.52,−0.06)*	0.034	-	-	−0.76 (−1.62, 0.09)	0.079
Body mass index (kg/m2)	0.98 (0.96, 1.00)*	0.041	-	-	0.99 (0.97, 1.01)	0.420	−0.09 (−0.19, 0.00)	0.058	-	-	−0.11 (−0.21,−0.01)*	0.046
Comorbiditiesj	0.96 (0.92, 1.01)	0.097	-	-	1.00 (0.95, 1.06)	0.989	-	-	-	-	-	-
Very much like to walkk	1.66 (1.28, 2.14)*	<0.001	-	-	1.52 (1.15, 2.01)*	0.004	1.29 (0.15, 2.44)*	0.027	-	-	1.44 (0.15, 2.73)*	0.029
Ambulatory confidencel	1.09 (1.02, 1.16)*	0.010	-	-	1.05 (0.98, 1.13)	0.184	-	-	-	-	-	-
Social Cohesionm	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.81 (−1.55,−0.06)*	0.034	-	-	−0.65 (−1.45, 0.15)	0.109
Disordern	0.80 (0.68, 0.95)*	0.009	-	-	1.19 (0.99, 1.43)	0.057	−0.71 (−1.68, 0.25)	0.144	-	-	0.23 (−0.96, 1.43)	0.699

^aThese analyses only include participants (n = 124) that self-reported ≥ 1 walking for transportation trip [as measured by the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) survey]

^bAnalysed using truncated poisson regression models. Data are presented as incident rate ratios (IRRs)

^cAnalysed using linear regression models

^dn_crime = 117; n_{comorbidities} = 121; n_disorder = 123

^eadjusted for Street Smart Walk Score, gender, and age

^fadjusted for all predictor variables listed in this table with the exception of vehicle availability, crime, and social cohesion, since these three variables were not associated with frequency of walking for transportation (n_trips/wk) at p ≤ 0.2 in bivariate analyses

^gn_{vehicle available} = 123; n_crime = 117; n_{social cohesion} = 120; n_disorder = 123

^hadjusted for all predictor variables listed in this table with the exception of comorbidities and ambulatory confidence, since these two variables were not associated with duration of walking for transportation (hr/wk) at p ≤ 0.2 in bivariate analyses

ⁱNeighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale—abbreviated (NEWS-A) Subscale H: Crime (four-point scale); reverse coded so that higher score indicates better walkability

^jTotal number; measured with the Functional Comorbidity Index

^kVery much like to walk (5 on a 5-point scale) vs. less than very much liking to walk (1–4 on a 5-point scale)

^lAssessed by the Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire

^m5-item measure of social cohesion and trust

ⁿ5-item measure of neighbourhood physical and social disorder; reverse coded so that higher score indicates better walkability (less disorder)

*p < 0.05