Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 93, Issue 2, pp 271–278 | Cite as

The Influence of Neighborhood Crime on Increases in Physical Activity during a Pilot Physical Activity Intervention in Children

  • Stephanie T. BroylesEmail author
  • Candice A. Myers
  • Kathryn T. Drazba
  • Arwen M. Marker
  • Timothy S. Church
  • Robert L. NewtonJr.
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether neighborhood crime moderated the response (increases in steps) to a pilot intervention to increase physical activity in children. Twenty-seven insufficiently active children aged 6–10 years (mean age = 8.7 years; 56 % female; 59 % African American) were randomly assigned to an intensive intervention group (IIG) or minimal intervention group (MIG). Change in average daily number of steps from baseline was regressed against an index of neighborhood crime in a multilevel repeated-measures model that included a propensity score to reduce confounding. Safer neighborhoods were associated with higher increases in steps during the pilot intervention (interaction p = 0.008). Children in the IIG living in low-crime neighborhoods significantly increased their physical activity (5275 ± 1040 steps/day) while those living in high-crime neighborhoods did not (1118 ± 1007) (p for difference = 0.046). In the IIG, the increase in daily steps was highly correlated with neighborhood crime (r = 0.58, p = 0.04). These findings suggest the need for physical activity interventions to account for participants’ environments in their design and/or delivery. To promote healthy behaviors in less-supportive environments, future studies should seek to understand how environments modify intervention response and to identify mediators of the relationship between environment and intervention.

Keywords

Physical Activity Propensity Score Block Group Physical Activity Intervention Neighborhood Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

STB conceived of the study, performed the analyses, and drafted the manuscript. RLNJr acquired the data (designing and directing the pilot intervention), aided with interpretation, and critically reviewed the manuscript. KTD, CAM, and AMM helped with data acquisition and critically reviewed the manuscript. TSC aided with interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors provided final approval of the manuscript and agree to be to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding Source

This work was supported in part by an American Heart Association grant 11GRNT7750027 (Broyles). RLNJr was supported by unrestricted funds from the Coca-Cola Foundation. The sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Ding D, Sallis J, Kerr J, Lee S, Rosenberg D. Neighborhood and physical activity among youth: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 41(4): 442–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein LH, Raja S, Gold SS, Paluch RA, Pak Y, Roemmich JN. Reducing sedentary behavior: the relationship between park area and the physical activity of youth. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(8): 654–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein LH, Raja S, Daniel TO, et al. The built environment moderates effects of family-based childhood obesity treatment over 2 years. Ann Behav Med. 2012; 44(2): 248–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newton RL Jr, Marker AM, Allen HR, et al. A parent-targeted mobile phone intervention to increase physical activity in sedentary children: a randomized pilot trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2014; 2(4): e48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tudor-Locke C, Hatano Y, Pangrazi RP, Kang M. Revisiting “how many steps are enough?”. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40(Suppl 7): S537–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, et al. Obesogenic neighborhood environments, child and parent obesity: the Neighborhood Impact on Kids study. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 42(5): e57–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011; 46(3): 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics. 1997; 53(3): 983–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell BA, Schoeneberger JA, Morgan GB, Ferron JM, Kromrey JD. Fundamental diagnostics for two-level mixed models: the SAS® Macro MIXED_DX. Paper presented at: SAS Global Forum 2010. http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings10/201-2010.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2016.
  10. 10.
    Ding D, Bracy NL, Sallis JF, et al. Is fear of strangers related to physical activity among youth? Am J Health Promot. 2012; 26(3): 189–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Datar A, Nicosia N, Shier V. Parent perceptions of neighborhood safety and children’s physical activity, sedentary behavior, and obesity: evidence from a national longitudinal study. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177(10): 1065–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janssen I. Crime and perceptions of safety in the home neighborhood are independently associated with physical activity among 11–15 year olds. Prev Med. 2014; 66: 113–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore JB, Jilcott SB, Shores KA, Evenson KR, Brownson RC, Novick LF. A qualitative examination of perceived barriers and facilitators of physical activity for urban and rural youth. Health Educ Res. 2010; 25(2): 355–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical activity levels among children aged 9–13 years—United States, 2002. MMWR. 2003; 52(33): 785–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weir LA, Etelson D, Brand DA. Parents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety and children’s physical activity. Prev Med. 2006; 43(3): 212–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL, et al. Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012; 126(12): 1514–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17(19): 2265–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boone-Heinonen J, Evenson KR, Song Y, Gordon-Larsen P. Built and socioeconomic environments: patterning and associations with physical activity in U.S. adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010; 7: 45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P, Popkin BM. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(2): 417–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loukaitou-Sideris A, Eck JE. Crime prevention and active living. Am J Health Promot. 2007; 21(4 Suppl): 380–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pennington Biomedical Research CenterBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  3. 3.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations