Sent the proportional increase in minutes/week cycling to school or to other destinations with a one-unit increase in the predictor. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128.tto other destinations. On the other hand, a one-unit increase in residential density and in perceived safety from crime was related to 14 and 25 minutes less cycling to other destinations, respectively.Correlates of public transportTable 5 presents associations of psychosocial and environmental variables with public transport. In summary, older adolescents having a higher social norm towards public transport, those perceiving more social modelling from brothers/sister and from friends, those perceiving more social support regarding public transport, those perceiving a lower land use mix accessPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128 January 19,10 /Important Factors for Transport Behaviour in Older AdolescentsTable 5. Associations of psychosocial and environmental variables with public transport. School Logit model: OR of being nonparticipanta (95 CI) Sociodemographic gender (ref: female) age BMI SES (ref: low) education (ref: vocational) Psychosocial social norm social modelling partner parents brothers/sisters friends social support Environmental land use mix access street connectivity safety from traffic safety from crime facilities at school distance 0.93 (0.90, 0.96)*** 2.31 (1.40, 3.81)** 1.62 (0.97, 2.70) 1.01 (0.76, 1.34) 0.97 (0.83, 1.12) 1.75 (1.07, 2.86)* 1.04 (1.03, 1.05)*** 2.15 jir.2012.0140 (1.33, 3.45)** 0.86 (0.75, 0.99)* 0.76 (0.62, 0.93)** 0.61 (0.42, 0.87)** 0.76 (0.62, 0.94)* 0.60 (0.42, 0.87)** 1.02 (0.88, 1.18) 0.94 (0.86, 1.02) 1.07 (0.95, 1.21) 1.08 (0.99, 1.18) 0.58 (0.45, 0.75)*** 1.08 (0.98, 1.20) 0.66 (0.51, 0.86)** 1.04 (0.91, 1.18) 1.68 (0.92, 3.09) 1.04 (1.01, 1.08)** 1.47 (0.87, 2.48) 2.16 (1.00, 4.64)* 0.74 (0.55, 1.00)* 0.72 (0.51, 1.01) 0.81 (0.57, 1.14) 1.27 (0.95, 1.68) Imatinib (Mesylate) cost negative binomial model: min/week (95 CI) Other destinations Logit model: OR of being nonparticipantb (95 CI) Negative binomial model: min/week (95 CI)OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.a bOR of being non-participant in public transport to school; OR of being non-participant in public transport to other destinationsSocio-demographic variables, psychosocial variables, and environmental variables for which at least a trend towards a significant relationship (p<0.10) was observed in the first step were journal.pone.0158910 included in this final model. ZINB models evaluate the correlates of the odds of non-participation in public transport to school or to other destinations (logit model). Simultaneously, among participants who did use public transport to go to school or to other destinations, ZINB models evaluate the correlates of weekly minutes public transport to school or to other destinations (negative binomial model). Negative binomial model parameters represent the proportional increase in minutes/ week public transport to school or to other destinations with a one-unit increase in the predictor. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128.tand those living further from school were more likely to make use of public transport to school. Among older adolescents who went to school by public transport within the last week, a oneunit increase in perceived facilities at school in favour of ICG-001MedChemExpress ICG-001 walking and cycling, and an increase of 1 km in distance to school was related to 75 and 4 minutes more public transport to school, respectively. Regarding public transport to other.Sent the proportional increase in minutes/week cycling to school or to other destinations with a one-unit increase in the predictor. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128.tto other destinations. On the other hand, a one-unit increase in residential density and in perceived safety from crime was related to 14 and 25 minutes less cycling to other destinations, respectively.Correlates of public transportTable 5 presents associations of psychosocial and environmental variables with public transport. In summary, older adolescents having a higher social norm towards public transport, those perceiving more social modelling from brothers/sister and from friends, those perceiving more social support regarding public transport, those perceiving a lower land use mix accessPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128 January 19,10 /Important Factors for Transport Behaviour in Older AdolescentsTable 5. Associations of psychosocial and environmental variables with public transport. School Logit model: OR of being nonparticipanta (95 CI) Sociodemographic gender (ref: female) age BMI SES (ref: low) education (ref: vocational) Psychosocial social norm social modelling partner parents brothers/sisters friends social support Environmental land use mix access street connectivity safety from traffic safety from crime facilities at school distance 0.93 (0.90, 0.96)*** 2.31 (1.40, 3.81)** 1.62 (0.97, 2.70) 1.01 (0.76, 1.34) 0.97 (0.83, 1.12) 1.75 (1.07, 2.86)* 1.04 (1.03, 1.05)*** 2.15 jir.2012.0140 (1.33, 3.45)** 0.86 (0.75, 0.99)* 0.76 (0.62, 0.93)** 0.61 (0.42, 0.87)** 0.76 (0.62, 0.94)* 0.60 (0.42, 0.87)** 1.02 (0.88, 1.18) 0.94 (0.86, 1.02) 1.07 (0.95, 1.21) 1.08 (0.99, 1.18) 0.58 (0.45, 0.75)*** 1.08 (0.98, 1.20) 0.66 (0.51, 0.86)** 1.04 (0.91, 1.18) 1.68 (0.92, 3.09) 1.04 (1.01, 1.08)** 1.47 (0.87, 2.48) 2.16 (1.00, 4.64)* 0.74 (0.55, 1.00)* 0.72 (0.51, 1.01) 0.81 (0.57, 1.14) 1.27 (0.95, 1.68) Negative binomial model: min/week (95 CI) Other destinations Logit model: OR of being nonparticipantb (95 CI) Negative binomial model: min/week (95 CI)OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.a bOR of being non-participant in public transport to school; OR of being non-participant in public transport to other destinationsSocio-demographic variables, psychosocial variables, and environmental variables for which at least a trend towards a significant relationship (p<0.10) was observed in the first step were journal.pone.0158910 included in this final model. ZINB models evaluate the correlates of the odds of non-participation in public transport to school or to other destinations (logit model). Simultaneously, among participants who did use public transport to go to school or to other destinations, ZINB models evaluate the correlates of weekly minutes public transport to school or to other destinations (negative binomial model). Negative binomial model parameters represent the proportional increase in minutes/ week public transport to school or to other destinations with a one-unit increase in the predictor. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147128.tand those living further from school were more likely to make use of public transport to school. Among older adolescents who went to school by public transport within the last week, a oneunit increase in perceived facilities at school in favour of walking and cycling, and an increase of 1 km in distance to school was related to 75 and 4 minutes more public transport to school, respectively. Regarding public transport to other.