Negative binomial regression analysis of the association between Walk Score and child pedestrian collison
| Model A Adjusted OR (95% CI), Collisions- adjusted for road coverage and child population | Model B Adjusted OR (95% CI) Collisions- Adjusted for road coverage, child population and walking to school | |
| Calgary (n=125) | ||
| Walk Score (0–100) | 1.15 (1.03, 129) | 1.10 (0.97, 1.24) |
| Road Coverage (10 m) | 0.90 (0.58, 1.42) | 0.93 (0.59, 1.46) |
| Child Population (per 1000) | 4.29 (2.73, 6.71) | 3.37 (2.02, 5.62) |
| Walking to school (%) | – | 1.17 (0.99, 1.37) |
| Montreal (n=67) | ||
| Walk Score (0–100) | 1.26 (1.04, 1.51) | 1.20 (1.00, 1.45) |
| Road Coverage (10 m) | 0.69 (0.44, 1.09) | 0.73 (0.47, 1.12) |
| Child Population (per 1000) | 1.54 (1.15, 2.06) | 1.46 (1.11, 1.93) |
| Walking to school (%) | – | 1.12 (1.01, 1.25) |
| Toronto (n=76) | ||
| Walk Score (0–100) | 1.15 (0.97, 1.36) | 1.14 (0.97, 1.36) |
| Road Coverage (10 m) | 1.02 (0.74, 1.40) | 1.02 (0.74, 1.40) |
| Child Population (per 1000) | 1.70 (1.19, 2.44) | 1.66 (1.07, 2.60) |
| Walking to school (%) | – | 1.01 (0.86, 1.19) |
| All Cities (n=268) | ||
| Walk Score (0–100) | 1.15 (1.07, 1.24) | 1.09 (1.01, 1.19) |
| Road Coverage (10 m) | 0.96 (0.79, 1.18) | 1.03 (0.84, 1.25) |
| Child Population (per 1000) | 1.95 (1.62, 2.36) | 1.67 (1.37, 2.03) |
| Walking to school (%) | – | 1.13 (1.05, 1.21) |