Table 1 Summary of included studies
Descriptors | Exposures | Outcomes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study ID Author, Year | Country | Study design | N | Sex, % Female | Age range *, (years) | Description | Statistic | Assessment | |||
Adams, 2013 [24] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 3516 | 54.9 | ≥ 18 | Traffic safety, supportive infrastructure, local amenities (destinations), social order, street connectivity, general environmental quality | Dichotomous walking and cycling for transport: 0 min/week and > 0 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ | ||
Adams, 2016 [25] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 1544 | 64.1 | ≥ 18 | Route infrastructure, route lighting (streetlights). Route free of litter/ graffiti (aesthetics), pleasant walking, convenient public transport | Dichotomous walking for transport: 0 min/week and > 0 min/week | Odds ratio | Transport and physical activity questionnaire | ||
Adams, 2017 [26] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 1189 | 65.6 | ≥ 18 | Age, education, ethnicity, vehicle access, physical activity, work-related physical activity, distance, free car parking at work, work hours, work pattern, occupation, psychosocial factors (attitude, behavioural control, intention, social norms, colleague support), perceived barriers | Dichotomous walking for transport: 0 min/week and > 0 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-S | ||
Adlakha, 2015 [27] | United States | Cross-sectional | 2015 | - | 21–65 | Large selection of fresh fruits and vegetables; Opportunities to purchase fast food; presence of healthy restaurants; 10–15-min walk to a transit stop; sidewalks on most streets; shops, stores, or markets; facilities to bicycle; recreation facilities; crime rates; traffic; See people being physically active | Dichotomous TRPA: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-S | ||
Adlakha, 2017 [28] | India | Cross-sectional | 370 | 54.2 | 18–65 | Age, sex, marital status, religion, education, income, employment, density, land-use mix, street connectivity, infrastructure for walking/bicycling, aesthetics, safety from traffic and crime | Dichotomous TRPA: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Aliyas, 2019 [29] | Iran | Cross-sectional | 1833 | 50.8 | 18–70 | Age (> 30 years), sex, education, marital status, occupation (employed), vehicle access, safety, crime, social ties, collective efficacy (social modelling) | Dichotomous TRPA level: < 60 min/week and ≥ 60 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Aliyas, 2020 [30] | Iran | Cross-sectional | 1132 | 50.7 | 18–65 | Age, sex, marital status, education, years at current address, number of children < 12yo, safety | Dichotomous average walking for transport: < 30 min/week and ≥ 30 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Amorim, 2010 [31] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 972 | 57.0 | 20–69 | Sidewalks, green-space, garbage accumulation, sewage presence, traffic impact on walk/ride, crosswalks, exhaust fumes, streetlights at night, crime, sports events, weather | Dichotomous TRPA: 0–149 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Prevalence ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Barr, 2019 [32] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 4913 | 46.4 | ≥ 18 | Local and regional accessibility measures (walkability) | Walking for transport: min/week | Regression coefficient | Accelerometer | ||
Barranco-Ruiz, 2019 [33] | Chile | Cross-sectional | 496 | 68.0 | ≥ 18 | Age, distance, socio-economic status, existing physical activity patterns | Commute mode: active or passive | Odds ratio | Questionnaire | ||
Bauman, 2011 [34] | Australia, China, Fiji, Malaysia, Nauru, Philippines | Cross-sectional | 173,206 | 54.1 | 18–64 | Age, sex, education, income, area (urban vs rural) | High TRPA: Australia (NA); China (≥ 30 min/day); Fiji (always or usually); Malaysia (≥ 3 days/week and accumulating ≥ 3000 MET-min/week); Philippines (top quartile) | Odds ratio | Survey | ||
Bopp, 2014 [35] | United States | Cross-sectional | 706 | 100 | ≥ 18 | Age, marital status, race/ethnicity, number of dependants, income, education, body mass index, chronic disease, self-reported health, employment, vehicle access, self-efficacy, physical activity behaviours, social norms, social modelling, distance, infrastructure, sidewalks, traffic, safety, weather | Dichotomous active commute: 0 trips/week and ≥ 1 trip/week | Odds ratio | Survey | ||
Bopp, 2019 [36] | United States | Longitudinal | 204 | 60.7 | ≥ 18 | Body mass index, stress level, depressive symptoms, existing physical activity level, distance, employment | Dichotomous TRPA (mins/week): top quartile = high TRPA | Odds ratio | GPAQ | ||
Borchardt, 2019 [37] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 1429 | 57.0 | 18–96 | Density, income, destinations, infrastructure, aesthetics, safety, proximity to coast, infrastructure | Dichotomous walking or cycling for transport: Yes = 10 consecutive minutes in previous 7 days; No = no TRPA exceeding 10 consecutive minutes | Prevalence ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Brondeel, 2016 [38] | France | Cross-sectional | 21,332 | - | 35–83 | Age, sex, employment, education, income, distance to public transport, vehicle access, transport behaviours, commute trip characteristics, size of parks, destinations, intersections (connectivity), population density | Transport-related moderate to vigorous physical activity (min/day) | Incidence risk ratio | Accelerometer | ||
Cerin, 2013 [39] | Canada | Cross-sectional | 484 | 58.0 | ≥ 65 | Destination diversity and prevalence, infrastructure, safety | Walking for transport (min/week) | Anti-logarithm of regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
Chudyk, 2017 [40] | Canada | Cross-sectional | 161 | 63.4 | 74.3 (6.2) | Age, sex, marital status, vehicle access, pet ownership, Street Smart Walk Score (walkability), aesthetics, safety, body mass index, gait speed, comorbidities (health), individual enjoyment / attitudes (physical activity behaviours), social cohesion | Walking for transport: any or none; frequency (trips/week) | Regression coefficient | Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors survey | ||
Cleland, 2010 [41] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 4349 | 100 | 18–45 | Age, area (rural vs urban), education, employment, marital status, number of children (dependants), health and health behaviours (weight status, pregnancy, illness, smoking), self-efficacy, physical activity behaviours (enjoyment, intention, outcome expectancies), childcare, family and friend support, pet ownership, social cohesion, safety, aesthetics, walking environment | Categorical TRPA: low (0–29 min/week), medium (30–149 min/week), or high (> 150 min/week) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Cleland, 2012 [42] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 3667 | 100 | 18–45 | Self-efficacy, enjoyment, outcome expectancy, intentions, skills, childcare availability, family support, friends support, dog ownership, safety, aesthetics, walking environment | Categorical TRPA: low (1–89 min/week), medium (90–209 min/week), or high (≥ 210 min/week) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Cleland, 2020 [43] | Australia | Longitudinal | 1480 | 100 | 18–46 | Age, country of birth, English spoken at home, education, income, number of children, health, body mass index, smoking status, pregnancy, menopause, physical activity enjoyment, family support, childcare availability, existing physical activity behaviours | TRPA (min/week) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Corseuil Giehl, 2017 [44] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 1705 | 63.9 | ≥ 60 | Sidewalks, crosswalk, aesthetic, streetlighting, safety, pet ownership, parks/recreational destinations | Categorical walking for transportation: none, 10–149 min/week, ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Dedele, 2019 [45] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 1111 | 57.7 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, marital status, number of dependants, educational, employment, income, vehicle access, body mass index, chronic disease (health), smoking / alcohol consumption (health behaviours), physical activity and mobility behaviour, socioeconomic status | Dichotomous TRPA: 0–29 min/day and ≥ 30 min/day | Prevalence, odds ratio | GPAQ | ||
Del Duca, 2013 [46] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 1720 | 54.4 | 35–74 | Age, sex, skin colour, marital status, education, family income | Dichotomous TRPA: inactivity and active | Prevalence ratio | Surveillance System of Protective and Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases | ||
de Matos, 2018 [47] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 15,105 | 54.4 | 35–74 | Age, ethnicity, dependent relatives, weight/anthropometric status, socio-economic status, traffic, safety, walkability, opportunities for physical activity | Categorical TRPA: inactive (< 10 min/week), insufficiently active (10–149 min/week), physically active (≥ 150 min/week) | Relative risk ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Durand, 2017 [48] | United States | Cross-sectional | 65,905 | 52.5 | 47.2 (30.8) | Daily measures of mean hourly temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), relative humidity (%), wind speed (miles per hour) and total daily precipitation (inches; includes snow and rain) | TRPA trip duration (min) | Regression coefficient | Travel diary | ||
Eichinger, 2015 [49] | Austria | Cross-sectional | 904 | 42.2 | 18–91 | Sex, distance, supportive infrastructure, connectivity, traffic and crime safety, pleasant environment, presence of trees (green space) social cohesion / support, social modelling, total physical activity | TRPA: MET min/week | Regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
Falconer, 2017 [50] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 6896 | 35.1 | ≥ 35 | Age, sex, deprivation, household income, health, distance, commute frequency, population density, air pollution, traffic density, proximity to major road, distance to major road | Dichotomous: active commute and no active commute | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Freeland, 2013 [14] | United States | Cross-sectional | 308,901 | 50.8 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, ethnicity, education, household income, race /ethnicity, vehicle access / ownership, employment status, urban size / density | Dichotomous walking for transport: < 30 min/day and ≥ 30 min/day | Odds ratio | National Household Travel Survey | ||
Ghani, 2018 [51] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 11,035 | - | 40–65 | Age, residential density, street connectivity, land-use mix | Dichotomous walking for transport: "none" (0 min/week) and "any" (1–840 min/week) | Regression coefficient | Single question | ||
Gul, 2019 [52] | Pakistan | Cross-sectional | 1042 | 33.3 | 18–65 | Age, sex, employment status, education, mode of transportation, marital status, neighbourhood type (gated / non-gated) | Practical walking: MET min/week | T-test, Pearson chi-square | NPAQ | ||
Kwasniewska, 2010 [53] | Poland | Cross-sectional | 7280 | 48.5 | 20–74 | Age, place of residence, education, income, marital status, smoking status, leisure-time physical activity, occupational physical activity | Categorical TRPA: 0 min/day; 1–14 min/day; 15 to 29 min/day; ≥ 30 min/day; and active or inactive | Odds ratio | Questionnaire | ||
Li, 2020 [54] | United States | Cross-sectional | 2848 | 60.0 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, education, income, race/ethnicity, years lived in neighbourhood, walkability, safety, aesthetics, financial cost, and time trade-off | Walking for transport (min/week) and willingness to walk for transport | Structural Equation Model | Survey | ||
Liao, 2017 [55] | Taiwan | Cross-sectional | 1068 | 50.8 | 20–64 | Public bicycle use | Dichotomous TRPA: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Lima, 2017 [56] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 602 | 37.7 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, socio-economic level, education, physical activity behaviours, active/sedentary status | TRPA (min/week) and transportation mode | Students t-test | IPAQ-S | ||
Lopes, 2018 [57] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 1419 | 63.6 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, marital status, socioeconomic status, nutritional status, self-rated health/ quality of life, perceived neighbourhood crime, motor vehicle access, days of public transport use per week, land use, streetscape, aesthetics, sidewalks, streets, social environment | Categorical walking for transport: ≥ 10 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week; Bicycling for transport: ≥ 10 min/week | Prevalence ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Lu, 2017 [58] | China | Cross-sectional | 1078 | - | 18–65 | Age, sex, education, population density, income, intersection density, land-use mix | Walking for transport (min/week) | Regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
Mackenbach, 2016 [59] | New Zealand | Cross-sectional | 481 | 46.8 | 20–65 | Income, population density, housing density, apartment density, land-use mix, public transport access and frequency, job accessibility, parking price, area deprivation, walkability | TRPA: Trips with an active mode ≥ 10 min | Odds ratio | New Zealand Household Travel Survey | ||
Malambo, 2017 [60] | South Africa | Cross-sectional | 671 | 76.0 | 35–70 | Land-use mix, street connectivity, infrastructure, aesthetics, safety (traffic/crime), urban / rural status | Dichotomous TRPA: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Matsushita, 2015 [61] | Japan | Cross-sectional | 3269 | 49.6 | 30–59 | Age, sex, household income, education, employment, number of motor vehicles, body mass index | Dichotomous TRPA: inactive (< 10 min/week) and active (≥ 10 min/week) | Odds ratio | GPAQ | ||
Mertens, 2019 [62] | Belgium | Longitudinal | 438 | 54.1 | ≥ 65 | Age, education, baseline transport-related physical activity, self-efficacy, neighbourhood social trust, neighbourhood social diversity, land-use mix, infrastructure, aesthetics, safety | Walking for transport: ≥ 10 min/week (engagement) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Molina-García, 2014 [63] | Spain | Cross-sectional | 518 | 59.7 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, socio-economic status, residence type (home or campus), distance, main transport mode | TRPA: MET min/week and commute mode | t-test, ANOVA | Survey | ||
Mumford, 2011 [64] | United States | Longitudinal | 101 | 67.0 | ≥ 18 | Neighbourhood density, land-use mix | Walking for transportation: mins/week and days/week | Odds ratio | Survey | ||
Nathan, 2014 [65] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 323 | 68.1 | 76.9 (7.3) | Aesthetics, safety, physical barriers, walkability, infrastructure | Dichotomous walking for transport: < 60 min/week and ≥ 60 min/week | Odds ratio | Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors survey | ||
Nordfjærn, 2019 [66] | Norway | Cross-sectional | 441 | 53.0 | 23.1 (4.8) | Age, sex, campus (area density), ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, safety, priorities of physical activity, convenience, duration / distance, vehicle access | Active transportation use | Regression coefficient | Questionnaire | ||
Padrão, 2012 [67] | Mozambique | Cross-sectional | 3211 | - | 25–64 | Age, sex, education, physical activity behaviours, urban / rural status | TRPA: ≥ 60 min/day | Prevalence ratio | GPAQ | ||
Panter, 2014 [68] | United Kingdom | Longitudinal | 655 | 69.0 | 18–69 | Pleasant walk environment, convenient public transport, traffic, safety, convenient routes | Change in TRPA (min/week); Uptake of TRPA | Odds ratio and regression coefficient | Survey | ||
Panter, 2011 [69] | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | 1142 | 68.0 | 42.3 (11.4) | Sex, vehicle access, distance, public transport, traffic, routes, safety, urban / rural status, vehicle use (intent, attitude, norms, habit) | Walking for transport: no engagement and any engagement; Cycling for transport: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | Survey | ||
Panter, 2011 [69] | United Kingdom | Longitudinal | 1279 | 53.1 | 49–80 | Age, sex, body mass index, employment, habit, control, intent, attitude, subjective norm, social support, distance, perceived environment, residence type, socio-economic deprivation, land-use mix, access, street connectivity, infrastructure, aesthetics, safety, urban/rural status, density, streetlights, connectivity, sidewalks, walkability | Commute mode: active or non-active | Odds ratio | EPAQ2 | ||
Pelclova, 2013 [70] | Czech Republic | Cross-sectional | 2839 | 50.1 | ≥ 50 | Residential density, land use-mix, street connectivity, infrastructure, aesthetics, safety | Walking for transport: < 30 min/day and ≥ 30 min/day | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Perchoux, 2017 [71] | France | Cross-sectional | 23,432 | 100 | ≥ 18 | Occupation intensity, leisure-time physical activity, transportation type, destinations, infrastructure, aesthetics, social norms, social modelling | TRPA (hours/week) determining cluster allocation | Odds ratio | STAQ | ||
Quinn, 2017 [72] | United States | Cross-sectional | 152,573 | 48.5 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, education, race, income, urban / rural status, employment, distance / duration, employment start time | TRPA: non-active (< 10 min/trip) and active (≥ 10 min/trip) | Odds ratio | Interview | ||
Reilly, 2013 [73] | United States | Cross-sectional | 387 | 96.0 | 18–39 | Age, sex, education, income, marital status, birthplace, length of US residency, health insurance status, physician communication | TRPA: no engagement and any engagement | Odds ratio | GPAQ | ||
Ryan, 2018 [74] | Canada | Cross-sectional | 5180 | 52.5 | 20–64 | Age, sex, income, education, urban / rural status, health, smoking status, body mass index, aboriginal language, spirituality | Categorical walking for transportation: < 1 h/week, 1–5 h/week, > 5 h/week | Odds ratio | Aboriginal Peoples Survey | ||
Saris, 2013 [75] | Netherland | Cross-sectional | 622 | 54.2 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, neighbourhood status score (infrastructure, traffic, safety) | TRPA: walking and cycling for transport (mins/week) | Regression coefficient | SQUASH | ||
Shimura, 2012 [76] | Australia | Longitudinal | 504 | 54.0 | 50–65 | Neighbourhood walkability | Changes in walking for transport: min/day | Regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
Simons, 2017 [77] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 224 | 56.0 | 18–26 | Self-efficacy, social support, social norms, social modelling, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, land-use mix, street connectivity, walking and cycling facilities, aesthetics, work facilities, distance, density, safety, education level | Transport mode, TRPA duration (min/day), TRPA frequency (days/week) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Slater, 2016 [78] | United States | Cross-sectional | 311 | 58.5 | 18–45 | Age, sex, body mass index, education, income, marital status, smoking, cancer diagnosis, vehicle access, leisure/work/household physical activity, environmental barriers, planning/psychosocial barriers, safety barriers, health barriers, walkability | TRPA: no engagement and any engagement | Odds ratio | IPAQ based questionnaire | ||
Thern, 2015 [79] | Sweden | Cross-sectional | 432 | 52.0 | 20–52 | Ethnicity, pet ownership, residential area, environment, alcohol consumption, outdoor recreational physical activity, indoor physical activity | Dichotomous TRPA: active (if a person walked or cycled ≥ 15 min, one-way to school or work) and non-active (if a person walked or cycled for < 15 min, one-way to school or work) | Odds ratio | Swedish Survey of Living Conditions | ||
Van Cauwenberg, 2012 [80] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 48,879 | 55.7 | ≥ 60 | Age, sex, education, income, functional limitations, distance, destinations, public transport, infrastructure, sidewalks, intersections, safety, streetlighting, aesthetics, greenness, urban / rural status, | Dichotomized walking and cycling for transport: "almost daily walking for transportation" and "less than almost daily walking for transportation" or "almost daily cycling for transportation" and "less than almost daily cycling for transportation" | Odds ratio | Belgian Aging Study questionnaire | ||
Van Cauwenberg, 2013 [81] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 50,685 | 55.5 | ≥ 60 | Age, sex, marital status, functional limitations, educational, income, area (urban / semi-urban), Environmental index (absence of high curbs, destinations, benches, crossings, bus stops, street lighting, safety from crime), distance | Dichotomized walking for transport: "almost daily walking for transportation" and "less than almost daily walking for transportation" | Odds ratio, predicted probability | Belgian Aging Study questionnaire | ||
Van Cauwenberg, 2014 [82] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 24,875 | 55.6 | ≥ 65 | Frequency of contact with neighbours, satisfaction of contact with neighbours, neighbour social support, community members, formal community engagement | Dichotomized walking for transport: "almost daily walking for transportation" and "less than almost daily walking for transportation" | Odds ratio | Belgian Aging Study questionnaire | ||
Van Dyck, 2010 [83] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 1200 | 52.1 | 20–65 | Walkability | Walking and cycling for transportation (min/week) | Regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
Van Dyck, 2013 [84] | Belgium | Cross-sectional | 4139 | 100 | 18–46 | Aesthetics, physical activity environment, personal safety, neighbourhood social cohesion | Walking for transportation (min/week) | Regression coefficient | IPAQ-L | ||
van Heeswijck, 2015 [85] | Canada | Cross-sectional | 37,165 | 52.0 | 20–89 | Density, land-use mix, greenness, intersection density | Dichotomous TRPA: "sedentary" and "active" commute | Odds ratio | Questionnaire | ||
Veitch, 2013 [86] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 319 | 65.3 | 55.9 (15.4) | Park visitation | Categorical TRPA: low (0–90 min/week), medium (91–275 min/week), high (≥ 276 min/week) | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Wasfi, 2013 [87] | Canada | Cross-sectional | 6913 | 57.0 | 33.6 (12.4) | Age, sex, income, travel behaviour (type, frequency, distance), social characteristics (education), population density, destination density, intersections | Total walking distance/day for commute (metres) | Regression coefficient | Geographic Information System | ||
Weber Corseuil, 2012 [88] | Brazil | Cross-sectional | 1656 | 63.9 | 60–102 | Streetlighting, safety | Dichotomous TRPA: < 150 min/week and ≥ 150 min/week | Prevalence ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Wilson, 2012 [89] | Australia | Cross-sectional | 10,745 | 55.7 | 40–65 | Density, hilliness, tree coverage, bikeways, streetlights, river or coast, public transport, shop, land-use mix | Categorical walking for transportation: 0 min/week, 1–59 min/week, 60–149 min/week, ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | Questionnaire | ||
Witten, 2012 [90] | New Zealand | Cross-sectional | 2033 | 57.2 | 20–65 | Dwelling density, street connectivity, land-use mix, streetscape, neighbourhood destinations accessibility index | TRPA (min/week) transformed to have a standard deviation of one | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||
Yang, 2017 [91] | United Kingdom | Longitudinal | 1143 | 69.0 | 40–79 | Distance, streetlighting, walkability, main or secondary road on route | Commute mode: "active" and "passive" commuters; Categorical change in commuter mode over time | Odds ratio | EPAQ2 | ||
Yang, 2020 [54] | United States | Cross-sectional | 125,819 | - | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, employment, neighbourhood population density, driver status, vehicle access | TRPA: trips/week | Adjusted means | National Household Travel Survey | ||
Yu, 2020 [92] | United States | Cross-sectional | 109,617 | 49.6 | ≥ 18 | Sex, race, education, income, population density, number of vehicles, number of household members | Two dichotomous TRPA variables: (1) "did not walk" and "walked to/from transit to work"; (2) "walked ≥ 30 min/day to or from transit to work" and "walked < 30 min/day to or from transit to work" | Odds ratio | National Household Travel Survey | ||
Zwald, 2014 [93] | United States | Cross-sectional | 772 | 63.6 | ≥ 18 | Age, sex, income, employment, public transport use, safety, traffic, sidewalks, destinations | Categorical walking for transportation: 0 min/week, 1–149 min/week, ≥ 150 min/week | Odds ratio | IPAQ-L | ||