Table 2.
Participant characteristics, overall and among participants reporting no walking for recreation or transport.
| Characteristic | Overall (N = 928) | No recreational walking (N = 136)a | No transport walking (N = 41)a |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60 (56, 64) | 60 (55, 65) | 62 (56, 64) |
| Female gender | 501 (54%) | 81 (60%) | 17 (41%) |
| Race/ethnicity | |||
| Non-Hispanic White | 407 (44%) | 46 (34%) | 17 (41%) |
| Non-Hispanic Chinese | 101 (11%) | 10 (7%) | 6 (15%) |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 251 (27%) | 57 (42%) | 8 (20%) |
| Hispanic | 169 (18%) | 23 (17%) | 10 (24%) |
| Socioeconomic positionb | |||
| Low | 263 (28%) | 42 (31%) | 11 (27%) |
| Moderate | 361 (39%) | 66 (49%) | 17 (41%) |
| High | 304 (33%) | 28 (21%) | 13 (32%) |
| Own ≥1 car | 792 (85%) | 123 (90%) | 39 (95%) |
| Job type | |||
| Full-time | 658 (71%) | 103 (76%) | 28 (68%) |
| Part-time | 169 (18%) | 17 (13%) | 6 (15%) |
| Otherc | 101 (11%) | 16 (12%) | 7 (17%) |
| Self-rated health | |||
| Better | 532 (57%) | 74 (54%) | 23 (56%) |
| Same | 351 (38%) | 57 (42%) | 15 (37%) |
| Worse | 45 (5%) | 5 (4%) | 3 (7%) |
| Number of chronic conditionsd | |||
| 0 | 393 (42%) | 46 (34%) | 15 (37%) |
| 1 | 351 (38%) | 58 (43%) | 16 (39%) |
| >1 | 184 (20%) | 32 (24%) | 10 (24%) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28 (25, 32) | 30 (26, 33) | 29 (26, 32) |
| Married/living with partner | 612 (66%) | 76 (56%) | 32 (78%) |
| Caregiver | 199 (21%) | 33 (24%) | 4 (10%) |
| MESA site | |||
| Forsyth Co., NC | 178 (19%) | 26 (19%) | 8 (20%) |
| New York, NY | 156 (17%) | 21 (15%) | 2 (5%) |
| Baltimore City and Co., MD | 123 (13%) | 30 (22%) | 6 (15%) |
| St. Paul, MN | 176 (19%) | 28 (21%) | 14 (34%) |
| Chicago, IL | 190 (20%) | 16 (12%) | 7 (17%) |
| Los Angeles Co., CA | 105 (11%) | 15 (11%) | 4 (10%) |
| Recreational walking (min/week) | 90 (0, 240) | 0 (0, 0) | 0 (0, 225) |
| Transport walking (min/week) | 150 (45, 360) | 122 (40, 240) | 0 (0, 0) |
| Aesthetic quality | |||
| Little trash on the street | 773 (83%) | 111 (82%) | 33 (80%) |
| Little noise in neighborhood | 585 (63%) | 86 (63%) | 27 (66%) |
| Neighborhood is attractive | 761 (82%) | 106 (78%) | 34 (83%) |
| Safety | |||
| Feel safe walking | 701 (76%) | 97 (71%) | 29 (71%) |
| Violence is not a problem | 698 (75%) | 103 (76%) | 29 (71%) |
| Walking environment | |||
| Pleasant to walk | 805 (87%) | 108 (79%) | 31 (76%) |
| Easy to walk places | 724 (78%) | 92 (68%) | 27 (66%) |
| See others walking | 827 (89%) | 115 (85%) | 35 (85%) |
| See others exercising | 708 (76%) | 87 (64%) | 24 (59%) |
| Low social cohesion | 72 (8%) | 19 (14%) | 9 (22%) |
| Density of walking destinations | 55.3 ± 79.7 | 46.9 ± 73.4 | 24.8 ± 35.1 |
| Network ratio | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.2 |
| Population density per mi2 | 14,207 ± 19,055 | 13,777 ± 19,659 | 5,975 ± 5,886 |
Abbreviations: BMI body mass index; MESA Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.
Most characteristics were measured at the last MESA exam prior to retirement for each participant (2000–2007), excepting SEP (measured at baseline) and community correlates (measured at the MESA exam closest to retirement for each participant). Values are N (%), mean ± standard deviation, or median (first quartile, third quartile).
Persons reporting no recreational and transport walking before and after retirement are not mutually exclusive (N = 9 in both columns).
Composite index of education, income, and four indicators of wealth (ownership of home, land/property, car, investments) categorized as low (0–4), moderate (5–7), or high (8–10) (Mezuk et al., 2010).
Includes homemaker, on-leave from work, or unemployed at the exam prior to retirement.
Includes asthma, emphysema, arthritis flare up in the past two weeks, high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.