Associations of perceived neighbourhood and home environments with sedentary behaviour among adolescents in 14 countries: the IPEN adolescent cross sectional observational study

Anjana, Ranjit Mohan; Ranjani, Harish; Cerin, Ester; Akram, Muhammad; Salmon, Jo; Conway, Terry L.; Cain, Kelli L.; Pradeepa, Rajendra; Barnett, Anthony; Sit, Cindy H. P.; Van Dyck, Delfien; Hino, Adriano Akira; Pizarro, Andreia; Oyeyemi, Adewale L.; Muda, Wan Abdul Manan Wan; Moran, Mika R.; Troelsen, Jens; Mitáš, Josef; Islam, M. Zakiul; Queralt, Ana; Mohan, Viswanathan; Hinckson, Erica; Sallis, James F.

doi:10.1186/s12966-024-01678-4

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Table 3 Total and direct effects of perceived neighbourhood and home environment characteristics on adolescents’ screen time and transport-related sitting time (N = 6,302)

From: Associations of perceived neighbourhood and home environments with sedentary behaviour among adolescents in 14 countries: the IPEN adolescent cross sectional observational study

Characteristic [range of values]	Effect	Screen time (min/day)			Transport-related sitting time (min/day)
		b	95% CI	p	e^b	95% CI	p
Parent-reported neighbourhood environment
Residential density [0–1000]	Total	-0.01	-0.04, 0.01	.339	0.9998	0.9996, 1.0000	.073
	Direct	-0.02	-0.05, 0.01	.241	0.9999	0.9997, 1.0001	.288
Land use mix – diversity [1–5]	Total	-6.35	-11.41, -1.29	.014	0.90	0.86, 0.93	< .001
	Direct	-6.76	-12.68, -0.84	.026	0.90	0.86, 0.94	< .001
Transit stop proximity [1–5]	Total	3.04	-2.29, 8.38	.268	1.00	0.96, 1.06	.738
	Direct	5.75	-0.20, 11.70	.065	1.00	0.96, 1.00	.738
Recreation facilities [1–5]	Total	-3.20	-8.18, 1.79	.210	0.96	0.92, 1.00	.050
	Direct	-0.92	-6.54, 4.71	.750	0.96	0.92, 1.00	.050
Park proximity [1–5]	Total	-3.64	-7.54, 0.26	.069	1.00	0.97, 1.03	.888
	Direct	-2.79	-7.46, 1.88	.244	1.00	0.97, 1.03	.888
Accessibility & walking facilities [1–4]	Total	-1.70	-9.14, 5.74	.655	0.91	0.86, 0.97	.003
	Direct	1.41	-6.35, 9.17	.722	0.91	0.86, 0.97	.003
Traffic safety [1–4]	Total	-15.32	-21.98, -8.66	< .001	0.97	0.92, 1.02	.299
	Direct	-12.35	-19.18, -5.52	< .001	0.97	0.92, 1.02	.299
Pedestrian infrastructure & safety [1–4]	Total	-0.92	-7.47, 5.62	.783	0.95	0.90, 0.998	.040
	Direct	3.89	-3.23, 11.00	.286	0.95	0.90, 0.998	.040
Crime Safety [1–4]	Total	-7.90	-12.85, -2.96	.002	0.98	0.94, 1.02	.243
	Direct	-6.28	-11.13, -1.42	.012	0.98	0.94, 1.02	.243
Aesthetics [1–4]	Total	-5.23	-10.84, 0.37	.068	1.01	0.96, 1.06	.738
	Direct	-3.37	-9.14, 2.40	.253	1.01	0.96, 1.06	.738
Adolescent-reported home environment
Electronic devices in the bedroom [0–6]	Total^a	15.95	13.59, 18.30	< .001	-	-	-
Personal electronic devices [0–3]	Total^a	26.58	21.97, 31.20	< .001	-	-	-
Having own social media [0–1]	Total^a	37.20	27.28, 47.11	< .001	-	-	-

b regression coefficient, e^b exponentiated regression coefficient, CI confidence intervals, p p-value,—not estimates as theoretically unrelated to sedentary behaviour outcome
^aTotal and direct effects are equivalent as no mediating variables of characteristic-outcome associations were included in the models. All analyses were performed on 20 imputed datasets. Complete case analyses are in the Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S2 and S6). Model covariates are reported in Tables S1 and S5 (Supplementary Material 2). Statistically significant effects (p < .05) are in bold

Back to article page

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us

Submission enquiries: beverly.mapua@springernature.com
General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com