Table 5.
Correlates associated with changes in transport walking after retirement.
| Correlate level Correlate |
Decrease vs. maintain |
Increase vs. maintain |
|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Core variables | ||
| Gender | ||
| Male | 1.46 (0.85, 2.52) | 1.06 (0.67, 1.68) |
| Female | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Socioeconomic positiona | ||
| Low | 2.06 (0.95, 4.48) | 0.98 (0.56, 1.70) |
| Moderate | 1.67 (0.94, 2.98) | 1.10 (0.69, 1.76) |
| High | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Race/ethnicity | ||
| Chinese American | 2.81 (0.99, 8.02) | 1.03 (0.50, 2.10) |
| Non-Hispanic black | 0.81 (0.43, 1.52) | 0.73 (0.43, 1.24) |
| Hispanic | 1.94 (0.73, 5.17) | 1.42 (0.67, 3.02) |
| Non-Hispanic white | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Retirement age (1-year difference) | 0.98 (0.93, 1.02) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) |
| Time between exams (1-year difference) | 1.07 (0.95, 1.21) | 1.10 (0.99, 1.20) |
| Season of pre-retirement exam | ||
| Spring | 1.68 (0.81, 3.51) | 1.65 (1.01, 2.71)⁎ |
| Summer | 1.99 (0.91, 4.38) | 1.37 (0.77, 2.47) |
| Fall | 2.41 (1.11, 5.22)⁎ | 1.48 (0.84, 2.60) |
| Winter | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Season of post-retirement exam | ||
| Spring | 0.65 (0.31, 1.35) | 0.72 (0.41, 1.25) |
| Summer | 0.34 (0.15, 0.76)⁎ | 0.64 (0.35, 1.16) |
| Fall | 0.88 (0.38, 2.05) | 1.13 (0.60, 2.13) |
| Winter | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| MESA site | ||
| Forsyth Co., NC | 0.77 (0.31, 1.90) | 0.62 (0.33, 1.16) |
| New York, NY | 3.06 (0.96, 9.77) | 2.06 (0.90, 4.72) |
| Baltimore City and Co., MD | 1.08 (0.39, 3.02) | 1.19 (0.56, 2.53) |
| St. Paul, MN | 1.15 (0.47, 2.81) | 0.66 (0.37, 1.17) |
| Los Angeles Co., CA | 0.30 (0.11, 0.86)⁎ | 0.24 (0.12, 0.48)⁎ |
| Chicago, IL | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Pre-retirement transport walking | ||
| ≤90 min/week | 0.01 (0.01, 0.03)⁎ | 0.86 (0.48, 1.57) |
| >90 to ≤300 min/week | 0.19 (0.10, 0.34)⁎ | 0.87 (0.48, 1.58) |
| >300 min/week | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Individual-level | ||
| Self-rated health relative to others | ||
| Improved after retirement | 1.33 (0.70, 2.53) | |
| Declined after retirement | 2.02 (1.11, 3.70)⁎ | |
| Always “same”/“worse” | 0.64 (0.35, 1.14) | |
| Always “better” | 1 (ref) | |
| Interpersonal-level | ||
| Change in partnership status | ||
| Never married/lived with partner | 1.38 (0.75, 2.51) | 1.09 (0.62, 1.89) |
| Married/lived with partner before retirement | 3.63 (0.89, 14.79) | 2.90 (1.10, 7.68)⁎ |
| Married/lived with partner after retirement | 2.91 (0.51, 16.73) | 0.92 (0.27, 3.11) |
| Always married/lived with partner | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
| Change in caregiver statusb | ||
| Caregiver before retirement | 0.68 (0.31, 1.52) | |
| Caregiver after retirement | 0.52 (0.26, 1.05) | |
| Always a caregiver | 2.26 (0.87, 5.86) | |
| Never a caregiver | 1 (ref) | |
| Community-level | ||
| Density of walking destinations (1-SD unit increase) | 0.65 (0.45, 0.95)⁎ | |
| Aesthetic quality: there is a lot of trash on the street | ||
| Disagree | 0.46 (0.23, 0.91)⁎ | |
| Agree | 1 (ref) | |
| Aesthetic quality: my neighborhood is attractive | ||
| Agree | 0.69 (0.41, 1.16) | |
| Disagree | 1 (ref) | |
| Safety: violence is a problem in my neighborhood | ||
| Disagree | 1.57 (0.81, 3.05) | |
| Agree | 1 (ref) | |
| Walking environment: it is easy to walk places | ||
| Agree | 0.53 (0.25, 1.15) | |
| Disagree | 1 (ref) | |
| Walking environment: I see others walking | ||
| Agree | 2.38 (1.02, 5.53)⁎ | 1.59 (0.85, 2.98) |
| Disagree | 1 (ref) | 1 (ref) |
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval; MESA Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis; OR odds ratio; SD standard deviation.
Individual-, interpersonal-, and community-level correlates associated with decreased (≤−60 min/week; N = 353) or increased (≥60 min/week; N = 362) transport walking after retirement compared to maintaining transport walking after retirement (within 60 min/week; N = 172) among MESA participants reporting >0 min/week transport walking before or after retirement (data collected 2000 to 2012). Odds ratios (95% CI) from separate multivariable logistic regression models comparing decreased vs. maintained and increased vs. maintained categories. All models adjusted for nine core variables, other variables selected via backward selection using likelihood ratio tests to compare nested models (α = 0.2). Final models estimated using generalized estimating equations with exchangeable correlation structure.
Composite index of education, income, and four indicators of wealth (ownership of home, land/property, car, investments).
Caregiver defined as reporting ≥150 min/week of caregiving physical activity to children or adults.
p-Value < 0.05.