Association of psychosocial and perceived environmental factors with park-based physical activity among elderly in two cities in China and Germany

Wagner, Petra; Duan, Yan Ping; Zhang, Ru; Wulff, Hagen; Brehm, Walter

doi:10.1186/s12889-019-8140-z

Table 4 Multiple regression results for prediction of PBPA energy expenditure (n = 526)

From: Association of psychosocial and perceived environmental factors with park-based physical activity among elderly in two cities in China and Germany

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Variables	B (95% CI)	β	B (95% CI)	β	B (95% CI)	β	B (95% CI)	β
Gender	87.50 [33.60, 141.39]	.13^**	82.28 [28.47, 136.09]	.12^**	53.66 [0.93, 106.39]	.08^*	50.89 [−2.00, 103.79]	.08
Marital status	−4.35 [−67,61, 58.92]	−.01	− 2.53 [−65.66, 60.59]	−.003	28.05 [−33.65, 89.76]	.04	25.52 [− 36.38, 87.42]	.03
Education level^a	73.51 [16.79, 130.23]	.11^*	86.41 [29.13, 143.68]	.12^**	84.94 [29.65, 140.24]	.12^**	89.05 [33.76, 144.34]	.13^**
BMI	−36.77 [−54.01, −19.53]	−.18^***	− 33.11 [−50.55, −15.68]	−.16^***	−7.86 [−26.50, 10.78]	−.04	−8.43 [− 26.78, 10.13]	−.04
Self-efficacy	114.43 [47.87, 180.98]	.16^**	106.41 [39.58, 173.24]	.15^**	109.57 [45.05, 174.10]	.15^**	97.77 [32.29, 163.24]	.13^**
Enjoyment	−2.84 [−95.71, 90.03]	−.003	0.23 [−93.79, 94.25]	.000	73.91 [−19.81, 167.63]	.09	50.64 [−44.81, 146.09]	.06
Perceived benefits	114.46 [23.12, 205.80]	.11^*	111.98 [19.95, 204.00]	.11^*	59.72 [−30.64, 150.10]	.06	98.79 [1.76, 195.82]	.10
Perceived barriers	− 219.60 [−318.32, −120.87]	−.23^***	− 238.86 [− 341.23, −136.50]	−.25^***	− 344.94 [− 449.32, − 240.56]	−.36^***	− 323.82 [− 447.65, − 200.00]	−.34^***
Safety			−7.56 [−114.94, 99.83]	−.01	5.82 [−97.94, 109.58]	.01	−14.77 [− 119.64, 90.11]	.01
Attractive-ness			−109.43 [− 244.06, 25.20]	−.08	−61.75 [− 192.59, 69.10]	−.05	−31.06 [−163.90, 101.77]	−.02
Park features			108.28 [−3.83, 220.39]	.09	48.16 .[−61.73, 158.06]	.04	43.42 [−68.97, 155.81]	.04
Park time distance			−62.96 [− 115.62, −10.29]	−.10^*	−34.21 [−85.87, 17.44]	−.05	−24.17 [− 7676, 28.42]	−.04
City					233.77 [159.69, 307.84]	.35^***	224.15 [143.34, 304.96]	.33^***
City * Self-efficacy							42.50 [−22.19, 107.18]	.06
City * Enjoyment							0.22 [−95.13, 95.60]	.000
City * Perceived benefits							66.74 [−30.17, 163.66]	.07
City * Perceived barriers							−28.47 [−150.60, 93.66]	−.03
City* safety							7.43 [−96.95, 111.82]	.01
City * Attractiveness							−35.68 [− 168.73, 97.37]	−.03
City * Park feature							−119.83 [− 230.71, −8.95]	−.10^*
City * Park time distance							63.62 [11.12, 116.12]	.10^*

Model 1 R² = .18; Model 2 R² = .19; Model 3 R² = .25; Model 4 R² = .27
Effect size (f ²) of association: Model1 f ² = 0.22; Model 2 f ² = 0.23; Model 3 f ² = 0.33; Model 4 f ² = 0.37
^aEducation level was divided into two categories: low level (primary school) and middle to high level (high school and university)
* p < 0.05, 2 tailed, ** p < 0.01, 2 tailed, ***p < 0.001, 2 tailed

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Public Health

Contact us