. 2022 Nov 21;30:102066. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.102066

Table 3.

Group differences in household access to physical activity (PA) infrastructure, parent PA perceptions, and child moderate-vigorous PA by combined community- and neighborhood-level access groups.

	Group 1: Most Access RUCA¹4,5 Walk Score®² 25+ n = 39	Group 2: Mixed Access RUCA 7,10 Walk Score® 25+ n = 18	Group 3: Mixed Access RUCA 4,5 Walk Score® 0–24 n = 40	Group 4: Least Access RUCA 7,10 Walk Score® 0–24 n = 15	Group Difference p-value
Proximity,³mean (SD)
Paved Trail	3.1 (1.2)^b, ^c, ^d	26.9 (14.4) ^a, ^c	10.3 (9.6) ^a, ^b, ^d	25.3 (15.1) ^a, ^c	<0.0001
Park, city and regional	0.4 (0.3)^c, ^d	0.4 (0.2)^c, ^d	4.4 (4.7)^a, ^b, ^d	9.1 (7.2) ^a, ^b, ^c	<0.0001
Community facility	1.7 (3.6)^c, ^d	1.7 (4.1)^c, ^d	5.8 (6.6)^a, ^b	9.1 (7.8)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Indoor recreational facility	1.7 (0.8)^c, ^d	3.3 (7.0)^c, ^d	10.4 (9.2)^a, ^b	13.8 (7.8)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Outdoor recreational facility	4.5 (1.7)^c, ^d	1.4 (0.8)^c, ^d	10.6 (7.0)^a, ^b	12.8 (7.9) ^a, ^b	<0.0001

Density,⁴mean (SD)
Sidewalk connectivity	1,077.2 (276.7)^b, ^c, ^d	390.4 (167.1)^a, ^d	255.1 (361.3)^a	55.3 (120.9)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Road connectivity	707.8 (94.1) ^b, ^c, ^d	475.4 (124.9)^a, ^c, ^d	196.5 (222.7)^a, ^b	97.9 (132.5) ^a, ^b	<0.0001
Park, city and regional	7.4 (2.4)^c, ^d	5.6 (2.0)^c, ^d	1.9 (2.5)^a, ^b	0.9 (1.8)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Community facility	3.1 (1.5)^b, ^c, ^d	3.7 (0.7)^a, ^c, ^d	1.2 (1.6)^a, ^b	0.7 (1.4)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Indoor recreational facility	1.1 (0.8)^c, ^d	1.3 (0.7)^c, ^d	0.3 (0.6)^a, ^b	0.3 (0.6)^a, ^b	<0.0001
Outdoor recreational facility	0.1 (0.3)^b	0.9 (0.6)^a, ^c, ^d	0.0 (0.2)^b	0.2 (0.6)^b	<0.0001

Parent PA Perceptions & Child PA, mean (SD)
Safe bike/walk⁵	17.1 (2.4)^c	18.5 (1.7)^c	15.0 (4.2)^a, ^b	15.8 (3.5)	0.002
Free/low-cost PA facilities⁶	3.6 (0.8)	3.6 (0.5)	3.3 (0.8)	3.4 (0.9)	0.375
Child MVPA⁷	44.2 (24.6)	42.4 (18.3)	42.6 (17.1)	38.8 (20.8)	0.863

Notes.

Multiple pairwise comparison statistical significance set at p <.01.

statistically significant mean differences from Group 1.

statistically significant mean differences from Group 2.

statistically significant mean differences from Group 3.

statistically significant mean differences from Group 4.

RUCA (Rural-Urban Commuting Area): a code associated with participant ZIP Code areas; RUCA codes characterize community-level population density and vehicle commuting routes with higher numerical codes indicating a greater degree of rurality.

Walk Score®: a score associated with participant home addresses; Walk Scores® estimate neighborhood-level walkability with a higher score indicating greater access to walkable amenities.

Proximity: the distance of a pedestrian network route between a participant’s home address and a built PA feature of interest; unit = kilometers.

⁴

Density: a measure of the built PA features of interest available within a 1600-meter network buffer of a participant’s home address; unit = counts.

⁵

Safe bike/walk: parent self-reported perceptions of access to safe biking and walking opportunities at study baseline; range of 5–20 with higher scores being more favorable; n = 100 survey responses.

⁶

Free/low-cost PA facilities: parent self-reported perceptions of access free or low-cost recreational facilitates at study baseline; range of 1–4 with higher scores being more favorable; n = 101 survey responses.

⁷

Child MVPA: child participation in moderate-vigorous PA as measured by accelerometry at study baseline; units = minutes/day; n = 108 valid accelerometer wear times.