Table 3

Associations between potential mediators, proximity to intervention and change in walking and cycling

(A) Associations between proximity to and use of intervention
Independent variable: residential proximity to intervention (km)
Dependent variableOR (95% CI)p Value
Use of intervention (yes/no)1.85 (1.61 to 2.11)0.001
(B) Associations between use of intervention and change in walking and cycling
Independent variable: use of intervention (yes/no)
Dependent variableβ (95% CI)p Value
Change in time spent walking and cycling (min/week)31.16 (−1.72 to 64.05)0.063
(C) Associations between proximity to intervention and perceived environmental changes
Independent variable: residential proximity to intervention (km)
Dependent variableβ (95% CI)p Value
Change in infrastructure0.05 (0.01 to 0.10)0.030
Change in safety0.03 (−0.02 to 0.08)0.182
Change in visibility0.05 (0.01 to 0.10)0.013
(D) Associations between perceived environmental changes and use of intervention
Dependent variable: use of intervention (yes/no)
Independent variableOR (95% CI)p Value
Change in infrastructure1.23 (1.06 to 1.44)0.008
Change in safety1.31 (1.13 to 1.54)0.001
Change in visibility1.33 (1.15 to 1.55)0.001
(E) Associations between perceived environmental changes and change in walking and cycling
Dependent variable: change in time spent walking and cycling (min/week)
Independent variableβ (95% CI)p Value
Change in infrastructure−2.51 (−17.16 to 12.13)0.736
Change in safety9.19 (−5.36 to 23.74)0.215
Change in visibility−6.21 (−20.62 to 8.19)0.398
(F) Associations between perceived environmental changes
Dependent variable: change in visibility
Independent variableβ (95% CI)p Value
Change in infrastructure0.06 (0.00 to 0.12)0.039
Change in safety0.03 (−0.03 to 0.09)0.328
Dependent variable: change in safety
Independent variableβ (95% CI)p Value
Change in infrastructure−0.03 (−0.10 to 0.03)0.215