Is access to workplace amenities associated with leisure-time physical activity among Canadian adults?
Watts, Allison W. ; Masse, Louise C.
Only 15% of Canadian adults meet the recommended level of 150
minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (PA) per week to
achieve health benefits, as measured by accelerometry. (1,2) PA declines
with age, (1) and is lower among females1 and those with lower
socio-economic status (SES). (3) Lack of PA has been associated with
increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some
cancers, obesity, psychological disorders as well as all-cause
mortality. (4-7) Approaches for promoting PA levels increasingly focus
on the influence of environmental settings. (8) Specifically, the
physical environment around an individual's home (e.g., design,
access to facilities, sidewalks) has recently been recognized as a
determinant of PA levels. (9-11) However, very few studies have examined
whether the physical environment around the workplace also influences PA
levels, in particular leisure-time PA (LTPA). (12-15)
In 2010, 62% of Canadian adults were employed and spent an average
of 36 hours per week at work. (16) As such, the workplace setting
represents an important target for population-level interventions aimed
at increasing LTPA levels. (17) Interventions to promote LTPA in the
workplace have had some success (17) and suggest that interventions
should target environmental aspects of the workplace to be more
efficacious and to better support employees in being more physically
active. (18,19) Supportive workplace environments for LTPA may include
providing access to amenities that could make it easier for employees to
engage in LTPA, such as access to gyms, health programs, showers, or
green space in the surrounding area of the workplace. (20) A survey of
over 1,700 Canadian companies found that 71% provided some form of
support to promote PA, such as access to recreational opportunities,
locker rooms, bicycle racks, and on-site fitness facilities. (21)
Evidence linking these amenities to employee LTPA levels could inform
the development and implementation of health strategies and policies for
businesses.
A small number of empirical studies have examined the relationship
between workplace environment and PA. Among 987 workers in North
Carolina, access to worksite facilities or policies that support PA was
associated with greater work-break PA but not overall LTPA. (12) A more
recent study of 1,300 adults living in three US states found that higher
scores on a 9-point worksite promotion index (e.g., availability of
exercise facilities, showers, stairs) was associated with greater
moderate-to-vigorous PA and total recreational PA among employees. (15)
Two additional studies have found limited13 or no association (14)
between perceived features of the workplace environment and PA. Authors
of a recent meta-analysis on workplace PA interventions reported that
few studies have targeted environmental characteristics of the workplace
to promote PA but suggested that environmental factors are promising
targets for changing employee's lifestyle behaviours. (22)
Current evidence includes studies on particular worksites,
geographical areas or within an intervention context; therefore, the
present study was designed to investigate the relationship between
perceived workplace support for LTPA and level of LTPA from a nationally
representative sample of Canadian adults. Examining a large group of
workers with a wide range of workplace environments will provide a more
generalizable understanding of the relationship under study. Insights
will also be more applicable for the Canadian context. The study
hypothesized that individuals who report access to a greater number of
supportive amenities (e.g., gym, showers, health programs) at work will
also report higher levels of LTPA, and explored whether this association
differed by age, sex and SES.
METHODS
Data from cycle 4.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)
were analyzed for this study. The CCHS is a cross-sectional survey with
data collected on the health of Canadians. A complex multi-stage
sampling frame was used to randomly select households from all Canadian
provinces and territories. Between January and December 2007,
computer-assisted interviews were conducted with individuals aged 12 and
older living in a private dwelling (excluding those living in
institutions, on First Nation reserves, on government-owned land, or in
certain remote regions). Further details about the CCHS methodology can
be found elsewhere. (23)
The sample for the present study was drawn from adults, aged 18 to
64, who worked in the week prior to completing the survey, did not work
from home, and responded to questions on PA level and workplace
environment, yielding a sample of 59,612 eligible respondents. Although
workplace questions were asked of those aged 15 to 74, the focus of this
study was on adults, thus, youth (<18) and older adults (65+) were
excluded. Youth and older adults are more likely to have unique
employment situations (e.g., part-time employment, less benefits) and
thus may have different experiences with access to recreational
facilities. Respondents working from home (n=5,872) were also excluded
since the work and home environment are combined for these individuals
and many of the workplace amenities would not apply (e.g., programs,
sports teams).
The primary variables of interest were LTPA and perceived access to
PA amenities at the workplace. An LTPA index was calculated by
Statistics Canada to categorize individuals as inactive, moderately
active or active. From a list of 21 activities (e.g., walking, running,
golfing), respondents reported the frequency and duration of engaging in
that activity over the previous three months. Questions were adapted
from the Minnesota Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire,
previously validated against cardiorespiratory fitness (r=0.43). (24)
Statistics Canada computed energy expenditure for each activity by
multiplying the minutes of activity with the corresponding Metabolic
Equivalent value (MET, where 1 MET is equivalent to energy expended
while sitting). (25) Energy expenditures for each activity were summed
and expressed as kilocalories per kilogram of body weight per day (KKD).
(25) Individuals were classified as inactive ([greater than or equal to]
1.5 KKD), moderately active (>1.5 and [less than or equal to] 2.9
KKD) and active (>3 KKD) based on cut-points consistent with Canadian
PA recommendations and literature. (26-28) Expenditure of 3 KKD is
equivalent to 60 minutes of brisk walking per day.
A more supportive workplace environment for PA was assessed by the
number of amenities respondents reported having access to at or near
their place of work. Response options included: 1) a pleasant place to
walk; 2) playing fields; 3) a gym; 4) fitness classes; 5) organized
sports teams; 6) shower/change rooms; and 7) programs to improve health.
Affirmative responses were added to create a numerical variable from 0
to 7 producing a scale with high internal consistency (Cronbach's
[alpha] =0.87).
Covariates examined included age, sex (male/female), income and
education. Respondents' age was collapsed into tertiles: 18-34
years, 35-49 years, and 50-64 years. Annual household income, collected
as a categorical variable, was grouped into two levels: less than or
equal to $59,000, and greater than or equal to $60,000. Educational
attainment was grouped into two levels: high school or less, and some
post-secondary or greater.
Individuals with missing responses to any of the study variables
were omitted, yielding an analytic sample of 48,916. A large number of
respondents did not provide responses to questions on workplace
amenities (n=10,545) or income (n=6,113). Since omitting income did not
significantly change the results (data not shown), it was removed to
reduce the amount of missing data. Further, 624 and 241 respondents did
not answer questions on LTPA and education level, respectively. As
compared to the analytic sample (n=48,916), respondents with missing
information (n=10,696; 17.9%) were more likely to be female (53% vs.
45%; p<0.001) and in the oldest age category (28% vs. 24%;
p<0.001). There were no differences in access to amenities (p=0.15),
LTPA (p=0.52) or education (p=0.91).
Multinomial logistic regression, using a generalized logit link,
was used to examine the association between perceived access to
amenities that facilitate PA while at work and LTPA level. Spearman
correlations and bivariable regression models were run to examine the
effect of each study variable on LTPA level and potential
multicolinearity issues (i.e., correlations less the .40). In
multivariable modelling, interaction effects with age, sex and education
were also examined. It was of interest to test if the relationship
between the workplace environment and LTPA differed by age, sex or
education as differences among groups would have potential policy
implications. Only significant interactions were kept in the final
model. Regardless of significance tests, it was decided that age, sex
and education would be included in the final model because they are
well-established variables known to influence both PA levels1 and type
of employment. (29,30) Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence
intervals (CI) were reported. Frequency percentages and analyses were
conducted using probability weights to account for the survey design
effect. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3 (SAS
Institute, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Within the analytic sample (n=48,916), half of respondents were
classified as inactive (51%) and three quarters (72%) reported access to
at least one amenity that supported PA at or near their workplace. The
most commonly reported amenity was a pleasant place to walk (55%),
followed by showers/change rooms (45%), and then a gym (42%). All
amenity types were reported more frequently by individuals who were more
active. Among those who were inactive (n=24,462), 67% reported access to
at least one workplace amenity as compared to 76% who were moderately
active, and 80% who were active. As presented in Table 1, activity level
increased with the mean number of reported workplace amenities. The
study sample was composed of more males (55%) than females and a high
proportion of adults with post-secondary education (74%). Spearman
correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 2.
Access to amenities that facilitate PA while at work was
significantly associated with more LTPA in both bivariable and
multivariable models (Table 3). For females in the youngest age category
(18-35), the odds of being moderately active were higher by 6% for every
additional workplace amenity an individual reported having access to
(AOR 1.06, CI 1.04-1.08). Similarly, the odds of being active as
compared to inactive were higher by 15% for every additional workplace
amenity an individual reported having access to (AOR 1.15, CI
1.13-1.17). These results can also be expressed as higher odds of being
moderately active and active by 46% and 168%, respectively, for females
in the youngest age category with access to all seven amenities as
compared to those with access to none. The association between workplace
amenities and LTPA was greater for males and for those in the older age
groups, although differences were modest. For males and adults aged 35
to 49 years, the interaction between workplace amenities and being
active as compared to inactive did not reach statistical significance.
No differences were found by educational attainment.
Findings also suggested that males and younger adults had higher
odds of being more active. Additionally, having a higher level of
education was associated with higher odds of being active.
DISCUSSION
This study found that the workplace environment can play a crucial
role in promoting an active lifestyle. Specifically, a more supportive
workplace environment for PA was positively associated with LTPA among
employees from a population-based sample of Canadians. This is the first
study to report that the benefits of workplace amenities may be greater
for males and may increase with age. This finding supports our
hypothesis and suggests that greater access to workplace amenities may
increase opportunities for LTPA by reducing barriers to being active at
work. Given the need to increase PA levels among the population,
employers should consider providing facilities and programs to support
LTPA as part of a broader strategy to increase employees' overall
health and productivity.
Employees who reported more supportive workplace environments for
PA, i.e., access to more amenities, were more likely to be moderately
active and active as compared to inactive. A previous study examining
similar workplace environment characteristics found a significant
association with work-break PA but, unlike this study, found no
association with any LTPA. (12) The study being restricted to one
geographical region (North Carolina) and having a smaller sample size
(n=987) may have limited the ability to detect an association. The
findings presented here are supported by an increasing number of studies
that suggest that the physical environment significantly impacts health
behaviours, including PA. (31-33) While these studies have typically
examined neighbourhood characteristics around the home (e.g., land-use
mix, street connectivity, access to recreational facilities), few have
investigated the area surrounding the workplace, where adults spend a
large proportion of their day. (32) The current study provides further
evidence that the workplace may act as an influential environment for
supporting LTPA. However, these findings do not shed light on what other
factors, such as policies or social norms, might be needed to facilitate
utilization of amenities.
The relationship between the workplace environment and LTPA was
stronger for older respondents as compared to younger respondents and
for males as compared to females. It is unclear why a stronger
association was observed for older workers, who are also less likely to
be physically active. It may suggest that older workers have fewer
opportunities to be active outside of work, thus, older employees may
benefit from workplace amenities to a greater extent than younger
employees. Findings also suggest that male employees may benefit from
workplace amenities to a greater extent than female employees, perhaps
because females may be less likely to utilize facilities at work.
Although this difference is not well understood, it may reflect grooming
and time requirements or comfort level with exercising in the workplace.
Despite the observed interaction with age and sex, effect sizes were
small and may not represent meaningful differences among age groups or
males versus females. (30) Further, since older age was also associated
with less access to workplace amenities, there may be added incentives
for workplaces to provide PA amenities given the aging Canadian
workforce, and the associated surge in health care costs. (34)
Consistent with national trends, females and older individuals were
less likely to be physically active in their leisure time. (1)
Education, a surrogate measure of SES within our sample, also
independently predicted levels of LTPA. In accordance with previous
research, individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to
engage in LTPA.35 Previous research suggests that decreased activity
related to SES is likely mediated by fewer resources, and reduced
self-efficacy and social support for LTPA. (36)
An important limitation of this study is that utilization of
workplace amenities was not measured, therefore, it is unclear how the
findings would differ if access and actual utilization of workplace
amenities were measured. Second, associations were examined in a
cross-sectional sample; therefore, it is possible that awareness of
amenities may be more common in individuals who regularly engage in
LTPA. Third, this study relied on self-reported measures of LTPA, which
are known to overestimate the number of Canadians meeting PA guidelines
(49% when measured with self-report versus 15% when measured with
accelerometry).1 Fourth, no previous studies have reported on the
reliability and validity of the LTPA cut-points used by the CCHS,
although they are routinely used. Fifth, individuals who did not work
the week prior to the survey, who worked from home, or who did not
identify with traditional workplaces (e.g., might include those who
travel frequently, work out of multiple locations, or have occupations
such as a taxi driver or flight attendant) were excluded; therefore, we
do not know how their work situation influenced LTPA. Sixth, those
excluded from the analyses were more likely to be female and older,
which may reflect the profile of the Canadian workforce and may differ
from other countries, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings
to the Canadian workforce. Finally, transportation-related activity may
be influenced by worksite features such as having shower/change rooms;
however, this type of activity was not examined.
In conclusion, employees are more active when employers provide
more amenities to encourage engagement in PA within the workplace
itself, in the surrounding area, as well as outside of work hours.
Interestingly, these benefits may be even greater for males and as
employee age increases. Where adequate resources are available,
employers are encouraged to provide amenities such as fitness facilities
and showers to support employees in being active as it can influence the
latter's levels of PA. Since the number of amenities offered by
employers resulted in greater potential benefits, employers should
provide as many opportunities as possible for engagement in LTPA. Where
resources are scarce or it is not possible to provide the workplace
amenities examined in this study, employers may benefit from finding
alternative strategies to help their employees be more active (e.g.,
partnering with community organizations). Future studies should examine
what other elements are needed to encourage the utilization of workplace
PA amenities, as amenities alone may not be enough to produce
substantial increases in LTPA. In the context of an aging workforce,
there is a high priority for workplaces to create environments that
support healthier behaviours, such as LTPA, as employee health is linked
to better job performance and lower health benefit costs.22 As
inactivity continues to have significant health impacts on Canadians,
the workplace offers a promising and modifiable target to increase
opportunities for LTPA.
Received: March 7, 2012 Accepted: October 5, 2012
Acknowledgements of Support: Ms. Watts was supported by doctoral
funding from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the CIHR
Training Grant in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease
Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program (Grant #: 53893), and the Danone
Institute of Canada. Dr. Masse received salary support from the Child
and Family Research Institute, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health
Research, and the Sunny Hill Foundation for Children. Special thanks to
Dr. Mieke Koehoorn, School of Population and Public Health at the
University of British Columbia, for providing input in the development
of this paper.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
REFERENCES
(1.) Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CI, Clarke J,
Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian adults: Accelerometer results
from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Reports
2011;22(1):1-8.
(2.) Tremblay MS, Warburton DER, Janssen I, Paterson DH, Latimer
AE, Rhodes RE, et al. New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Appl
Physiol Nutr Metab 2011;36(1):36-58.
(3.) Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. 2008
Physical Activity Monitor: Physical Activity Levels of Canadians, 2010.
Available at: http://www.cflri.ca/media/node/82/files/PAM2008FactsFigures_Bulletin02_PA_among_CanadiansEN.pdf (Accessed October 11, 2011).
(4.) WHO. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health,
2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/pa/en/index.html (Accessed September 25, 2012).
(5.) Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of
physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ2006;174(6):801-9.
(6.) Katzmarzyk P, Lear S. Physical activity for obese individuals:
A systematic review of effects on chronic disease risk factors. Obes Rev
2012;13(2):95-105.
(7.) Booth F, Laye M, Lees S, Rector R, Thyfault J. Reduced
physical activity and risk of chronic disease: The biology behind the
consequences. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008;102:381-90.
(8.) Spence JC, Lee RE. Toward a comprehensive model of physical
activity. Psychol Sport Exerc 2003;4(1):7-24.
(9.) Duncan MJ, Spence JC, Mummery WK. Perceived environment and
physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental
characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2005;2(11):1-9.
(10.) Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, Cain KL, Conway TL, Chapman
JE, et al. Neighborhood environment and psychosocial correlates of
adults' physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44(4):637-46.
(11.) Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, Ainsworth BE, Bull FC, Craig
CL, et al. Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults
in 11 countries. Am J Prev Med 2009;36(6):484-90.
(12.) Lucove JC, Huston SL, Evenson KR. Workers' perceptions
about worksite policies and environments and their association with
leisure-time physical activity. Am J Health Promot 2007;21(3):196-200.
(13.) Prodaniuk TR, Plotnikoff RC, Spence JC, Wilson PM. The
influence of self efficacy and outcome expectations on the relationship
between perceived environment and physical activity in the workplace.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2004;1(7):1-11.
(14.) Umstattd MR, Baller SL, Blunt GH, Darst ML. Correlates of
perceived worksite environmental support for physical activity. J Phys
Act Health 2011;8 (Suppl 2):S222-S227.
(15.) Crespo NC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank LD.
Worksite physical activity policies and environments in relation to
employee physical activity. Am J Health Promot 2011;25(4):264-71.
(16.) HRSDC. Indicators of Well-being in Canada, 2011. Available
at: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=13 (Accessed
October 11, 2011).
(17.) Cancelliere C, Cassidy JD, Ammendolia C, Cote P. Are
workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism
in workers? A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the
literature. BMC Public Health 2011;11:395.
(18.) Engbers LH, van Poppel MNM, Chin A, Paw MJM, van Mechelen W.
Worksite health promotion programs with environmental changes: A
systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005;29(1):61-70.
(19.) Verweij LM, Coffeng J, van Mechelen W, Proper KI.
Meta-analyses of workplace physical activity and dietary behaviour
interventions on weight outcomes. Obes Rev 2011;12(6):406-29.
(20.) Public Health Agency of Canada. Best Practices &
Recommendations in Worksite Health Promotion, 2007. Available at:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alwvat/recommend/index-eng.php (Accessed
October 11, 2011).
(21.) PHAC. Active Living in Canadian Workplaces, 2011. Available
at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alw-vat/intro/wp-mt-eng.php (Accessed
October 11, 2011).
(22.) Conn VS, Hafdahl AR, Cooper PS, Brown LM, Lusk SL.
Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. Am J Prev
Med 2009;37(4):330-39.
(23.) Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS),
2008. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgibin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SurvId=3226&SurvVer=0&InstaId=15282&InstaVer=4&SDDS=322 6&lang=en&db=IMDB&adm=8&dis=2 (Accessed
February 17, 2012).
(24.) Jacobs DR Jr, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A
simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity
questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25(1):81-91.
(25.) Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM,
Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: An update of
activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32(Suppl
9):S498-S504.
(26.) Tremblay MS, Bryan SN, Perez CE, Ardern CI, Katzmarzyk PT.
Physical activity and immigrant status: Evidence from the Canadian
Community Health Survey. Can J Public Health 2006;97(4):277-82.
(27.) Prince SA, Kristjansson EA, Russell K, Billette J-M, Sawada
MC, Ali A, et al. Relationships between neighborhoods, physical
activity, and obesity: A multilevel analysis of a large Canadian city.
Obesity 2012;20(10):2093-100.
(28.) Katzmarzyk PT, Tremblay MS. Limitations of Canada's
physical activity data: Implications for monitoring trends. Can J Public
Health 2007;98(Suppl 2):S185-S194.
(29.) Statistics Canada. Canada's Changing Labour Force, 2006
Census: Findings, 2009. Available at:
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/assa/97-559/index-eng.cfm (Accessed September 25, 2012).
(30.) Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE.
Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and
Repeated Measures Models. New York, NY: Springer, 2005;141-45.
(31.) Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated
with adults' participation in physical activity: A review. Am J
Prev Med 2002;22(3):188-99.
(32.) Troped PJ, Wilson JS, Matthews CE, Cromley EK, Melly SJ. The
built environment and location-based physical activity. Am J Prev Med
2010;38(4):429-38.
(33.) McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: A systematic
review of the relationship between the built environment and physical
activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011;8(125):1-31.
(34.) Pyper W. Aging, Health and Work. Perspectives on Labour and
Income (75-001-XIE). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 2006.
(35.) Smith P, Frank J, Mustard C. Trends in educational
inequalities in smoking and physical activity in Canada: 1974-2005. J
Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63(4):317-23.
(36.) Cerin E, Leslie E. How socio-economic status contributes to
participation in leisure-time physical activity. Soc Sci Med
2008;66(12):2596-609.
Allison W. Watts, MSc, Louise C. Masse, PhD
Author Affiliations School of Population and Public Health,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Correspondence: Allison Watts, F508-4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC
V6H 3V4, Tel: 604-875-3629, Fax: 604-875-8569, E-mail:
allison.watts@ubc.ca
Table 1. Descriptive Summary of Study Sample Using Frequencies and
Weighted Percentages, Overall and by Physical Activity
Level, 2007-2008, Canadian Community Health Survey (n=48,916)
Overall Inactive
(n=24,462)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
N (%) * ([dagger]) % * ([dagger])
Access to PA amenities (0-7) 2.76 (2.54) 2.37 (2.46)
Amenity type
Pleasant place to walk 27,765 (55.3) 50.2
Playing field 19,393 (37.1) 31.9
Gym 20,600 (41.7) 36.0
Fitness classes 15,764 (32.6) 27.3
Organized sports teams 14,644 (28.2) 22.8
Shower/change rooms 22,387 (44.5) 38.3
Programs to improve health 18,487 (36.6) 31.2
Sex
Female 23,944 (45.1) 47.4
Male 24,972 (55.0) 52.6
Age (yrs)
18-34 10,839 (26.1) 22.5
35-49 23,687 (49.5) 50.7
50-69 14,390 (24.4) 26.7
Educational attainment
<High school 13,523 (25.6) 28.5
[greater than or equal to] 35,393 (74.4) 71.5
Post-secondary
Moderately Active
(n=12,503) Active
Mean (SD) (n=11,951)
% * ([dagger]) Mean (SD)
Access to PA amenities (0-7) 2.97 (2.52) 3.36 (2.57)
Amenity type
Pleasant place to walk 58.0 63.2
Playing field 40.3 44.9
Gym 44.8 50.5
Fitness classes 36.0 40.3
Organized sports teams 30.9 36.9
Shower/change rooms 47.5 54.5
Programs to improve health 39.4 45.2
Sex
Female 45.3 39.9
Male 54.7 60.1
Age (yrs)
18-34 25.5 34.4
35-49 49.4 46.9
50-69 25.1 18.7
Educational attainment
<High school 23.9 21.4
[greater than or equal to] 76.1 78.6
Post-secondary
* Due to rounding, totals may not add up to 100%.
([dagger]) Probability-weighted percentages.
SD=standard deviation; PA=physical activity.
Table 2. Spearman Correlations Among Study Variables (n=48,916)
Leisure-time Access to PA Age
PA Level Amenities
Leisure-time PA level --
Access to PA amenities 0.162 ** --
Age -0.109 ** -0.010 * --
Sex (Female) -0.059 ** 0.052 ** -0.015 **
Educational attainment 0.070 ** 0.136 ** -0.015 **
Educational
Sex (Female) Attainment
Leisure-time PA level
Access to PA amenities
Age
Sex (Female) --
Educational attainment 0.052 ** --
* Significant at p<0.05.
** Significant at p<0.001.
PA=physical activity.
Table 3. Multinomial Logistic Regression Examining the Relationship
Between Access to Workplace Physical Activity Amenities and
Leisure-Time Physical Activity Level (double dagger), 2007-2008,
Canadian Community Health Survey (n=48,916)
Unadjusted
Moderately Active Active
Study Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Access to PA amenities 1.10 (1.09-1.11) * 1.16 (1.15-1.17) *
([dagger])
Age (yrs)
18-34 Reference Reference
35-49 0.86 (0.82-0.91) * 0.61 (0.58-0.64) *
50-69
Sex 0.83 (0.78-0.88) * 0.46 (0.43-0.49) *
Female Reference Reference
Male 1.09 (1.04-1.13) * 1.35 (1.29-1.41) *
Educational attainment
<High school 0.79 (0.75-0.83) * 0.68 (0.65-0.72) *
[greater than or Reference Reference
equal to]Post-
secondary
Interactions:
Access X Age (35-49)
Access X Age (50-69)
Access X Sex (Male)
Adjusted
Moderately Active Active
Study Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Access to PA amenities 1.06 (1.04-1.08) * 1.15 (1.13-1.17) *
([dagger]) ([dagger]) ([dagger])
Age (yrs)
18-34 Reference Reference
35-49 0.77 (0.71-0.83) * 0.56 (0.52-0.61) *
50-69
Sex 0.72 (0.66-0.79) * 0.43 (0.39-0.47) *
Female Reference Reference
Male 1.07 (1.01-1.15) * 1.48 (1.37-1.58) *
Educational attainment
<High school 0.84 (0.79-0.88) * 0.73 (0.70-0.77) *
[greater than or Reference Reference
equal to]Post-
secondary
Interactions:
Access X Age (35-49) 1.03 (1.01-1.06) * 1.01 (0.99-1.03)
Access X Age (50-69) 1.05 (1.03-1.08) * 1.00 (1.00-1.05) *
Access X Sex (Male) 1.02 (1.00-1.04) * 1.00 (0.98-1.02)
* Significantly different than reference category,
p[less than or equal to]0.05.
([dagger]) Estimates represent the odds of being physically
active during leisure time for females in the youngest age
category (18-34 years).
([double dagger]) Reference physical activity level is inactive.
OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval; PA=physical activity.
