Advertisement

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 235–245 | Cite as

Environmental and Psychosocial Correlates of Accelerometer-Assessed and Self-Reported Physical Activity in Belgian Adults

  • Delfien Van Dyck
  • Greet Cardon
  • Benedicte Deforche
  • Billie Giles-Corti
  • James F. Sallis
  • Neville Owen
  • Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij
Article

Abstract

Background

Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity (PA) on overall health, the majority of the adult population does not engage in sufficient PA. To develop effective interventions to increase PA, it is necessary to understand the most important PA correlates and to investigate whether correlates are similar in different population subgroups.

Purpose

This study examined associations between physical environmental perceptions and self-reported and objectively assessed PA in Belgian adults. Moreover, associations between psychosocial factors and PA, and the moderating effects of sociodemographic factors were investigated.

Method

A sample of 1,200 Belgian adults (20–65 years; 47.9% males) completed a survey measuring sociodemographic variables and psychosocial correlates, the Neighborhood Environmental Walkability Scale and the long-version International Physical Activity Questionnaire. They wore an accelerometer for 7 days.

Results

Perceiving neighborhoods to be high walkable (high residential density, high land use mix access, and high land use mix diversity) and recreation facilities to be convenient, and the availability of home PA equipment were the most consistent physical environmental correlates of PA. The strongest psychosocial correlates were social support from friends and family and self-efficacy. The psychosocial associations were most consistent for self-reported leisure-time PA and less clear for self-reported active transportation and accelerometer-assessed PA. Few significant sociodemographic moderators were found.

Conclusion

Both physical environmental and psychosocial factors were associated with PA in adults, with psychosocial factors being important especially for leisure-time PA. Correlates of PA were similar regardless of gender, age, or socio-economic status, so interventions to change these factors could have population-wide effects.

Keywords

Transportation Socio-economic status Accelerometers Ecological models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO) [B/09731/01]. Dr. Sallis’ contributions were supported by National Institutes of Health grant [HL67350]. Dr. Owen’s contributions were supported by a Program Grant [#301200] from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and by a Research Infrastructure Grant from Queensland Health.

We confirm that we have no conflict of interest. We have full control of all primary data and we agree to allow the journal to review are data if requested. All personal identifiers have been removed or disguised so the person(s) described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through the details of the story.

References

  1. 1.
    Wendel-Vos W, Droomers M, Kremers S, Brug J, van Lenthe F. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2007;8:425–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, Bauman A, Sallis JF. Understanding environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heath GW, Brownson R, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell KE, Ramsey LT, et al. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:S55–76.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tudor-Locke CE, Myers AM. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med. 2001;31:91–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2001;71:1–14.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Neighborhood SES and walkability are related to physical activity behavior in Belgian adults. Prev Med. 2010;50:S74–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Owen N, Cerin E, Leslie E, du Toit L, Coffee N, Frank LD, et al. Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:387–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora T. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher EB. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 465–86.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spence JC, Lee RE. Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2003;4:7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1583–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Bourdeaudhuij I, Teixeira PJ, Cardon G, Deforche B. Environmental and psychosocial correlates of physical activity in Portuguese and Belgian adults. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8:886–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shibata A, Oka K, Harada K, Nakamura Y, Muraoka I. Psychological, social and environmental factors to meeting physical activity recommendations among Japanese adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ekelund U, Sepp H, Brage S, Becker W, Jakes R, Hennings M, et al. Criterion-related validity of the last 7-day, short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in Swedish adults. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9:258–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santos R, Vale S, Miranda L, Mota J. Socio-demographic and perceived environmental correlates of walking in Portuguese adults—a multilevel analysis. Health Place. 2009;15:1094–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spence JC, Plotnikoff RC, Rovniak LS, Martin Ginis KA, Rodgers W, Lear SA. Perceived neighbourhood correlates of walking among participants visiting the Canada on the move website. Can J Public Health. 2006;97:S39–44.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Conway TL, Slymen DJ, Cain KL, et al. Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:1285–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Welk GJ. Use of accelerometry-based activity monitors to assess physical activity. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2002. p. 125–42.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:777–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis JF. Relative contribution of psychological determinants to the prediction of physical activity in three population based samples. Prev Med. 2002;34:279–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Tanghe A, Hills AP, De Bode P. Changes in physical activity and psychosocial determinants of physical activity in children and adolescents treated for obesity. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;55:407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lefevre J, Deforche B, Wijndaele K, Matton L, Philippaerts R. Physical activity and psychosocial correlates in normal and overweight 11 to 19 year olds. Obes Rev. 2005;13:1097–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:83–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute of Statistics-Belgium 2008. http://www.statbel.fgov.be, FOD Economie-Algemene Directie Statistiek.
  27. 27.
    Rodriguez DA, Khattak AJ, Evenson KR. Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. J Am Plan Assoc. 2006;72:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:S550–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transp Rev. 2008;28:495–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atkinson JL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Cain KL, Black JB. The association of neighborhood design and recreational environments with physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2005;19:304–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Booth ML, Owen N, Bauman A, Clavisi O, Leslie E. Social-cognitive and perceived environmental influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Prev Med. 2000;31:15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:1996–2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med. 2010;50:S106–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1995–2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ball K, Bauman A, Leslie E, Owen N. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience, and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001;33:434–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E, Marshall AL, Bauman AE, Sallis JF. Associations of location and perceived environmental attributes with walking in neighborhoods. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18:239–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kirtland K, Porter D, Addy C, Neet MJ, Williams JE, Sharpe PA, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perception versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24:323–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leslie E, Saelens B, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Coffee N, et al. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhoods: a pilot study. Health Place. 2005;11:227–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Adams MA, Ryan S, Kerr J, Sallis JF, Patrick K, Frank LD, et al. Validation of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) items using geographic information systems. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6:S113–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marquez DX, McAuley E. Social cognitive correlates of leisure time physical activity among Latinos. J Behav Med. 2006;29:281–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Giles-Corti B. People or places: what should be the target? J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9:357–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    De Geus B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Jannes C, Meeusen R. Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Educ Res. 2007;23:697–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hoehner CM, Brennan Ramirez LK, Elliott MB, Handy SL, Brownson RC. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:105–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:80–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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;36:484–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dishman RK, Darracott CR, Lambert LT. Failure to generalize determinants of self-reported physical activity to a motion sensor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24:904–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sallis JF, Taylor WC, Dowda M, Freedson PS, Pate RR. Correlates of vigorous physical activity for children in grades 1 through 12: comparing parent-reported and objectively measured physical activity. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2002;14:30–44.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR. Predictors of adoption and maintenance of vigorous physical activity in men and women. Prev Med. 1992;21:237–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delfien Van Dyck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Greet Cardon
    • 2
  • Benedicte Deforche
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Billie Giles-Corti
    • 4
  • James F. Sallis
    • 5
  • Neville Owen
    • 6
  • Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij
    • 2
  1. 1.Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO)GhentBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Movement and Sports SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Human Biometrics and BiomechanicsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.Centre for the Built Environment and HealthThe University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  5. 5.Department of PsychologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  6. 6.School of Population HealthThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations