Table 3

Proportional change (95% CI) in screen time over 2 years according to objective and perceived environmental attributes, after adjusting for baseline leisure-time sitting for transport (n=533)

Model 1Model 2
Exp(β)95% CIP valueExp(β)95% CIP value
Perceived
 Residential density (high)1.061.16 to 1.250.371.110.97 to 1.270.14
 Access to destination (good)0.960.84 to 1.100.541.000.88 to 1.140.97
 Access to public transportation (good)1.060.87 to 1.290.541.080.89 to 1.300.46
 Sidewalk (yes)0.960.84 to 1.090.500.990.87 to 1.120.84
 Street connectivity (good)1.030.89 to 1.190.721.060.92 to 1.220.39
GIS
 Residential density (high)1.010.88 to 1.140.941.050.92 to 1.200.47
 Access to destination (good)1.060.93 to 1.200.411.070.94 to 1.230.29
 Access to public transportation (good)1.020.90 to 1.160.781.020.90 to 1.160.74
 Sidewalk (yes)1.100.97 to 1.240.161.110.98 to 1.260.10
 Street connectivity (good)1.040.91 to 1.180.581.080.94 to 1.240.26
  • Generalised linear model (specifying a gamma distribution and using a log link).

  • Model 1: unadjusted model; model 2: adjusted for gender, age, marital status, education attainment, household income, BMI, physical function and MVPA at baseline, change in employment status and car ownership.

  • Results of each model are reported as antilogarithms of the regression coefficients (and their respective 95% CI). Coefficients less than 1 denote proportionally decreased time spent in screen time, whereas coefficients more than 1 denote proportionally increased time spent in screen time, relative to the reference category.

  • *P<0.05.

  • BMI, body mass index; GIS, geographic information system; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.