Skip to main content

Table 5 Predictors of intention groups – all compared to successful intenders

From: The short-term effects of a mass reach physical activity campaign: an evaluation using hierarchy of effects model and intention profiles

 

Χ2 = 230.82, p < .001;

Nagelkerke R2 = .196

Non-intenders

Unsuccessful intenders

Disinclined actors

Ambivalent nonactors

Ambivalent actors

Ambivalent

Predictor

 

Exp (B)

Exp (B)

Exp (B)

Exp (B)

Exp (B)

Exp (B)

Age

 

0.965**

.967**

.990

.981**

.990

.983

LTPA

Very light or light

1.691

0.740

1.289

1.719

1.606

5.937**

Moderate

0.408

1.027

0.512

0.531

1.010

1.258

Active

0.489

0.888

0.537

0.507

1.051

1.047

Very activea

–

–

–

–

–

–

Mentioned 150 Play List

0.594

1.015

1.876

0.884

1.210

0.652

Mentioned ‘getting active’

1.076

1.001

1.036

0.726

1.136

0.655

Importance

1.007

1.199

1.594

.973

1.005

1.058

Affective attitudes

1.060

1.034

0.808

1.149

0.983

1.064

Self-efficacy

1.018

0.991

0.995

1.007

1.003

1.012

Intentions

0.608**

0.862

1.165

0.731

0.922

0.819

150 Play List experience

0.586**

0.821

0.754*

0.677**

.903

0.645**

Ad attitudes

0.778

0.479*

0.617

0.660

.628*

0.724

  1. acomparison group; * p < .01, **p < .001
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us