Skip to main content

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
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 levela 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*
  1. Model 1 R2 = .18; Model 2 R2 = .19; Model 3 R2 = .25; Model 4 R2 = .27
  2. 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
  3. aEducation level was divided into two categories: low level (primary school) and middle to high level (high school and university)
  4. * p < 0.05, 2 tailed, ** p < 0.01, 2 tailed, ***p < 0.001, 2 tailed