Table 2.

Associations between dog ownership, leisure time walking, time spent in NOE near the home, general health status and mental health

Dog ownership (vs not)	Leisure time walking (high vs low)	Time spent in NOE near home (high vs low)	General health, excellent, (very) good (reference: fair, poor)	Mental health (scale 0–100, higher is better)
	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	OR (95% CI)	β (95% CI)
Total	2.17 (1.86 to 2.54) n=3586	2.37 (2.02 to 2.79) n=3530	0.92 (0.73 to 1.15) n=3586	0.24 (−0.89 to 1.37) n=3584
Barcelona	1.46 (1.03 to 2.08) n=979	2.14 (1.47 to 3.13) n=978	1.90 (1.01 to 3.56) n=979	0.13 (−2.29 to 2.55) n=979
Doetinchem	7.97 (5.18 to 12.25) n=851	1.18 (0.80 to 1.73) n=846	0.89 (0.37 to 2.17) n=851	1.61 (−0.55 to 3.78) n=849
Kaunas	1.05 (0.79 to 1.39) n=892	1.26 (0.93 to 1.69) n=844	0.71 (0.50 to 1.00) n=892	−2.17 (−4.40 to 0.06) n=892
Stoke-on-Trent	2.01 (1.44 to 2.79) n=864	2.31 (1.63 to 3.27) n=862	0.89 (0.57 to 1.37) n=864	2.61 (0.35 to 4.86) n=864

Analytical method: mixed models with random intercept for neighbourhoods and adjusted for age, sex, education, neighbourhood SES, household composition, perceived income situation, perceived NOE safety, physical constraint restricting mobility and chronic diseases. Analyses were based on complete cases.

NOE, natural outdoor environments.