Table 2.
Physical Activity Preference Weights, Socio-Demographics and Health Factors by Cluster
| Full sample n=146 |
Cluster 1 n=33 |
Cluster 2 n=63 |
Cluster 3 n=50 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical activity preference weights* | ||||
| Health benefits | 0.26 (0.13) | 0.18 (0.07) | 0.38 (0.07)† | 0.17 (0.08) |
| Enjoyment | 0.24 (0.09) | 0.35 0.07)† | 0.23 (0.06) | 0.18 (0.07)‡ |
| Convenience | 0.16 (0.07) | 0.18 (0.08) | 0.15 (0.04) | 0.16 (0.07) |
| Effort | 0.11 (0.09) | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.06 (0.05) | 0.18 (0.09)† |
| Cost | 0.11 (0.08) | 0.12 (0.08) | 0.10 (0.04) | 0.18 (0.10)† |
| Time | 0.10 (0.07) | 0.09 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.05) | 0.13 (0.10)‡ |
| Socio-demographic characteristics (%) | ||||
| Sex (female) | 72 | 73 | 63 | 82 |
| Age (65 years and older) | 47 | 52 | 41 | 50 |
| Race (White/Caucasian) | 47 | 52 | 43 | 50 |
| Education (bachelors or greater) | 60 | 61 | 63 | 56 |
| Family income (< $25000USD/year) | 46 | 43 | 42 | 55§ |
| Health factors (mean [SD] unless indicated) | ||||
| PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score | 57.7 (7.1) | 55.2 (7.0) | 56.9 (6.6) | 60.2 (6.9) † |
| PROMIS Physical Function T-Score | 43.2 (7.3) | 46.5 (6.6) | 43.5 (7.5) | 40.5 (6.5) || |
| PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities T-Score |
48.7 (7.7) | 51.7 (8.5) | 49.4 (6.7) | 46.0 (7.7) || |
| PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities T-Score |
47.6 (9.3) | 51.1 (10.3) | 47.3 (7.8) | 45.6 (9.8) || |
| Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale score | 5.5 (2.7) | 5.5 (2.7) | 6.2 (2.2) | 4.5 (2.9) ¶ |
| Any comorbidity (%) | 52 | 44 | 44 | 69§ |
| BMI (% >30 kg/m2) | 47 | 39 | 46 | 50 |
| Radiographic KOA (% KL grade II or higher)** | 62 | 52§ | 68 | 62 |
PROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. T-score range 0–100, general population mean=50, SD=10; Self-Efficacy for Exercise Score range 0–10, higher scores = greater self-efficacy.
Preference weights– higher values represent greater importance related to physical activity choice, physical activity attributes were used for cluster analysis. Significant differences in preferences between clusters are expected due to the clustering technique and do not represent meaningful findings.
Value significantly higher than other two clusters at P<0.05 level
Cluster 3 is significantly different than Cluster 2 at P<0.05
Significantly different frequency than expected at P<0.05 level
Cluster 3 is significantly lower than Cluster 1 at P<0.05.
Participants who declined having an X-ray due to recent or numerous knee radiographs in medical management were assumed to have KL grade II or higher.