Can a Motivational Intervention Overcome an Unsupportive Environment for Walking—Findings from the Step-by-Step Study
- First Online:
- 347 Downloads
Interventions to promote walking have rarely examined how their effects varied by the attributes of the physical environment.
The purpose of this study is to examine whether perceptions of environmental walkability predicted change in walking behavior following an individual-based intervention to promote walking and whether the intervention buffered the effects of unsupportive environment for walking.
Inactive adults (aged 30–65 years, 85% women) who completed a 3-month randomized control trial comparing the effect of a single mail-out of a theoretically based self-help walking program (WP, n = 102); the same program plus a pedometer (WPP, n = 105); and a “no-treatment” control group (C, n = 107). Measures included change in self-reported walking time for all purposes and in the proportion of people reporting regular walking (i.e., ≥150 min/week and ≥5 sessions/wk). Perceptions of environmental esthetics, safety from crime, proximity to destinations, access to walking facilities, traffic, streetlights, connectivity, and hilliness were assessed at baseline and dichotomized into “low” or “high” by the median score. Covariates were social support, self-efficacy, intention to change behavior, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Adjusting for baseline walking, significant covariates, and study groups, walking time at follow-up was lower if streetlights or esthetics were perceived to be “low” (−24% and −22%, respectively) compared with “high” (p < 0.05). In “low” esthetic conditions, those in the WPP were significantly more likely than controls to increase total walking time (Exp (b) = 2.53, p < 0.01) and to undertake regular walking (OR = 5.85, 95% CI 2.60–12.2), whereas in esthetically pleasing environments, the between-group differences were nonsignificant.
Walkability attributes can influence individual-based walking programs. Some environmental barriers for walking can be overcome by motivational aids.
KeywordsWalking Perceived environment Intervention Randomized control trial
- 7.Sallis JF, Owen N. Ecological model of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education. Theory, Research and Practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 462-484.Google Scholar
- 11.Burton NW, Turrell G, Oldenburg B, Sallis JF. The relative contributions of psychological, social, and environmental variables to explain participation in walking, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity leisure time physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2005; 2: 181-196.Google Scholar
- 17.Linenger JM, Chesson VC, Nice DS. Physical fitness gains following simple environmental change. Am J Prev Med. 1991; 7: 299-311.Google Scholar
- 20.Baranowski T, Perry CL, Parcel GS. How individuals, environments, and health behavior interact. Social Cognitive Theory. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 153-177.Google Scholar
- 24.Timperio A, Salmon J, Bull F, Rosenberg M. Validation of physical activity questions for use in Australian population surveys. Report prepared for Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging. Canberra, 2002.Google Scholar
- 26.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 27.Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
- 28.Morrow JR. Measurement issues for the assessment of physical activity. In: Welk GJ, ed. Physical activity assessment for health-related research. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2002: 37-49.Google Scholar
- 38.King WC, Brach JS, Belle S, et al. The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am J Health Promotion. 2003; 18: 74-82.Google Scholar