Does Perceived Neighborhood Walkability and Safety Mediate the Association Between Education and Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines?
BRIEF — Volume 12 — April 9, 2015
A pair of flow charts shows the relationships between education level and meeting physical activity guidelines, taking into account the covariates of age, sex, race/ethnicity, geography, and community focus and the mediating effects of perceived neighborhood safety from crime and perceived neighborhood walkability. The influence of education level and each significant covariate on meeting physical activity guidelines and perceived neighborhood safety from crime and perceived neighborhood walkability are reported as standardized regression coefficients from the structural equation models. The effects of perceived neighborhood safety from crime and perceived neighborhood walkability on meeting physical activity guidelines are also reported as standardized regression coefficients from the structural equation models in the following tables.
Flow Chart A. Mediation Model From Education to Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines Showing the Direct Effects Of Education and the Indirect (Mediated) Effect Acting Through Perceived Neighborhood Safetya
| Covariates and Mediating Effects | Standardized Regression Coefficients | |
|---|---|---|
| Neighborhood Safety | Physical Activity Guidelines | |
| Age | −0.039 | — |
| Sex | 0.059 | 0.049 |
| Race | 0.186 | 0.049 |
| Education | 0.197 | 0.123 |
| Geography | −0.035 | 0.045 |
| Community focus | 0.029 | — |
| Neighborhood safety | — | 0.048 |
Abbreviation: —, not applicable.a Effects of education level with mediation by perceived neighborhood safety from crime: direct effect = 0.123; indirect effect = 0.197 × 0.048 = 0.009; total effect = 0.123 + 0.009 = 0.132; mediation proportion = 0.009 ÷ 0.132 × 100 = 6.8%.b Effects of education with mediation by perceived neighborhood walkability: direct effect = 0.118; indirect effect = 0.164 × 0.091 = 0.015; total effect t =0.118 + 0.015 = 0.133; mediation proportion = 0.015 ÷ 0.133 × 100 = 11.3%.
Flow Chart B. Mediation Model From Education to Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines Showing the Direct Effects of Education Level and the Indirect (Mediated) Effect Acting Through Perceived Neighborhood Walkabilityb
| Covariates and Mediating Effects | Neighborhood Walkability | Physical Activity Guidelines |
|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.078 | 0.052 |
| Sex | — | 0.046 |
| Race | 0.129 | 0.118 |
| Education | 0.164 | 0.044 |
| Geography | — | — |
| Community focus | 0.039 | 0.091 |
| Neighborhood walkability | — | — |
Abbreviation: —, not applicable.a Effects of education level with mediation by perceived neighborhood safety from crime: direct effect = 0.123; indirect effect = 0.197 × 0.048 = 0.009; total effect = 0.123 + 0.009 = 0.132; mediation proportion = 0.009 ÷ 0.132 × 100 = 6.8%.b Effects of education with mediation by perceived neighborhood walkability: direct effect = 0.118; indirect effect = 0.164 × 0.091 = 0.015; total effect t =0.118 + 0.015 = 0.133; mediation proportion = 0.015 ÷ 0.133 × 100 = 11.3%.
SEM showed that level of education had significant direct and indirect effects on meeting physical activity guidelines. The indirect effects are partially mediated by both perceived neighborhood walkability and perceived neighborhood safety from crime. Neighborhood walkability mediates 11.3% of the total effect of education on meeting physical activity guidelines. Neighborhood safety mediates 6.8% of the total effect of education on meeting physical activity guidelines.
Figure. Mediation models from education level to meeting physical activity guidelines showing the direct effects of education, the indirect (mediated) effects acting through perceived neighborhood safety and perceived neighborhood walkability, and the proportion of the overall effect due to mediation, Communities Putting Prevention to Work: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2010 and 2012. Numbers in the figure are standardized regression coefficients in the structural equation models.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.