Giles-Corti Billie, Macintyre Sally, Clarkson Johanna P, Pikora Terro, Donovan Robert J
School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley 6009, Western Australia.
Am J Health Promot. 2003 Sep-Oct;18(1):93-102. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.1.93.
To examine associations between environmental and lifestyle factors and overweight or obesity.
A cross-sectional survey and an environmental scan of recreational facilities.
Metropolitan Perth, Western Australia.
Healthy sedentary workers and homemakers aged 18 to 59 years (n = 1803) living in areas within the top and bottom quintiles of social disadvantage.
Four lifestyle factors, one social environmental factor, and five physical environment factors (three objectively measured).
After adjustment for demographic factors and other variables in the model, overweight was associated with living on a highway (odds ratio [OR], 4.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-11.09) or streets with no sidewalks or sidewalks on one side only (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.78) and perceiving no paths within walking distance (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.08-1.86). Poor access to four or more recreational facilities (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.11-2.55) and sidewalks (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, .98-2.68) and perceiving no shop within walking distance (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.36) were associated with obesity. Conversely, access to a motor vehicle all the time was negatively associated with obesity (OR, .56; 95% CI, .32-.99). Watching 3 or more hours of television daily (ORs, 1.92 and 1.85, respectively) and rating oneself as less active than others (ORs, 1.66 and 4.05, respectively) were associated with both overweight and obesity. After adjustment for individual demographic factors and all other variables in the model, socioeconomic status of area of residence and leisure-time physical activity were not associated with overweight or obesity.
Factors that influence overweight and obesity appear to differ, but aspects of the physical environment may be important. Objectively measured neighborhood environment factors warrant further investigation.
研究环境和生活方式因素与超重或肥胖之间的关联。
一项横断面调查以及对娱乐设施的环境扫描。
西澳大利亚州珀斯市都会区。
年龄在18至59岁之间(n = 1803)、久坐不动的健康上班族和家庭主妇,居住在社会劣势程度最高和最低五分位数区域内。
四种生活方式因素、一种社会环境因素和五种物理环境因素(三种为客观测量)。
在对模型中的人口统计学因素和其他变量进行调整后,超重与居住在高速公路附近(比值比[OR],4.24;95%置信区间[CI],1.62 - 11.09)或没有人行道或只有单侧有人行道的街道附近(OR,1.35;95% CI,1.03 - 1.78)以及感觉步行距离内没有路径(OR,1.42;95% CI,1.08 - 1.86)有关。难以使用四个或更多娱乐设施(OR,1.68;95% CI,(1.11 - 2.55))、难以使用人行道(OR,1.62;95% CI,0.98 - 2.68)以及感觉步行距离内没有商店(OR,1.84;95% CI,1.01 - 3.36)与肥胖有关。相反,随时都能使用机动车与肥胖呈负相关(OR,0.56;95% CI,0.32 - 0.99)。每天看电视3小时或更长时间(OR分别为1.92和1.85)以及自我感觉比其他人活动量少(OR分别为1.66和4.05)与超重和肥胖都有关。在对个体人口统计学因素和模型中的所有其他变量进行调整后,居住地区的社会经济地位和休闲时间身体活动与超重或肥胖无关。
影响超重和肥胖的因素似乎有所不同,但物理环境方面可能很重要。客观测量的邻里环境因素值得进一步研究。