Walking for Transportation or Leisure: What Difference Does the Neighborhood Make?
- 483 Downloads
Patients are often advised to initiate a physical activity program by walking for transportation or leisure. This study explored whether neighborhood factors beyond the individual might affect compliance.
We examined the associations between total walking and neighborhood factors in a multi-ethnic population-based sample in California and the roles race/ethnicity plays in these associations.
Individual-level data were obtained from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey. Participants’ census tracts were linked to Census 2000 data to capture neighborhood SES.
Measurements and Main Results
The dependent variable was self-reported walking at recommended levels. Neighborhood SES was measured by a scale of 4 Census-based variables (alpha = 0.83). Social cohesion was measured by a scale tapping the extent of perceived social connectedness, trust, and solidarity among neighbors (alpha = 0.70). Neighborhood access to a park, playground, or open space was measured by a single item. Safety was measured by a scale of three items (alpha = 0.66). We performed a series of multiple logit models with robust variance estimates while taking complex survey design into account. Neighborhood social cohesion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.14) and access to a park, playground, or open space (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.36) were significant environmental correlates of walking at recommended levels, independent of individual socio-demographics. Subgroup analysis showed that neighborhood effects were different by race/ethnicity.
Neighborhood physical and social environmental factors are significantly associated with walking at recommended levels. Being aware of the ways that the environment could affect a patient’s compliance with PA recommendations may help physicians tailor recommendations to circumstances.
KEY WORDSphysical activity walking neighborhood social cohesion trust neighborhood safety neighborhood SES
This work was supported by a Research Scholars Grant GPHPS 107922 from the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA (Lauderdale is the PI; Wen and Kandula are co-investigators) and a grant awarded to Wen (NICHD R03 HD0525370-01). The authors thank UCLA Center for Health Policy Research for providing access to the confidential data of the 2003 California Health Interview Survey.
Conflict of Interest
This research was supported by a research grant from the American Cancer Society to all three authors, with Dr. Lauderdale as PI and Dr. Wen and Dr. Kandula as co-investigators. Dr. Wen also received a grant from the NICHD to partly support her work in this research.
No other potential conflict of interest is involved in this research.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Perceptions of neighborhood characteristics and leisure-time physical inactivity—Austin/Travis County, Texas, 2004. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2005;54(37):926–8.Google Scholar
- 2.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. Vol 2 volumes, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000.Google Scholar
- 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity trends—United States, 1990–1998. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2001;50:166–9.Google Scholar
- 5.Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(4S).Google Scholar
- 8.The Surgeon General’s Call to Action Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2001.Google Scholar
- 10.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996:87–142.Google Scholar
- 22.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy places terminology-designing and building healthy places. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm.; Accessed on: August 12, 2005.
- 23.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.Google Scholar
- 28.California Health Interview Survey. The 2003 California Health Interview Survey Response Rates. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research; 2003.Google Scholar
- 31.Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, Payne LL. Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. Amerique. 2005;28(suppl 2):150–8.Google Scholar
- 34.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity among Asians and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders—50 states and the District of Columbia, 2001–2003. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2004;53(33):756–60.Google Scholar
- 41.Wen M, Browning CR, Cagney K. A multi-level study of neighborhood environment and its relationship to physical activity in adulthood. Urban Stud. 2007;44(13):1–18.Google Scholar
- 48.Heymann J, Fishcher A. Neighborhoods, Health Research, and Its Relevance to Public Policy. In: Kawachi I, Berkman LF, eds. Neighborhoods and Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:335–47.Google Scholar
- 49.Katx L, Kling J, Liebman J. Moving to opportunity in Boston: early results of a randomized mobility experiment. Q J Econ. 2001;116(2):604–54.Google Scholar
- 50.Rosenbaum JE. Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: lessons from the Gautreaux Program. Hous Policy Debate. 1995;6:231–69.Google Scholar