School of Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
Prev Med. 2011 May;52(5):352-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.004. Epub 2011 Mar 22.
To compare rates of stair climbing in a high and low socioeconomic (SE) area, and to assess the efficacy of a stair climbing intervention in each area.
From March to May 2009 ascending stair/escalator choices (N=20,315) were observed in two underground train stations located in a high, and low, SE area of Glasgow. Baseline observations preceded a 4-week intervention in which posters, promoting stair choice, were installed. Follow-up observations were collected 1 week after poster removal.
Baseline stair climbing rates were 12.2% and 7.1% at the high and low SE stations, respectively. Overall, pedestrians at the high SE station were around twice as likely to climb the stairs as those at the low SE station (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.70-2.15). Across sites, the rate of stair climbing was higher during the intervention relative to baseline (OR = 1.48, CI = 1.34-1.63) and remained elevated at follow-up (OR = 1.24, CI = 1.11-1.39). Absolute increase in stair climbing was similar at both stations (high SE, +4.7%; low SE, +4.5%), indicating equivalent poster effects in each area.
Pedestrians in lower SE areas appear less likely to climb stairs than pedestrians in high SE areas. Nevertheless, a stair climbing intervention was equally effective in both areas.
比较高、低社会经济（SE）地区的爬楼梯率，并评估在每个地区进行爬楼梯干预的效果。
2009 年 3 月至 5 月，在格拉斯哥高、低 SE 区的两个地铁站观察上下楼梯/自动扶梯的选择（N=20315）。在安装宣传爬楼梯选择的海报的 4 周干预之前进行基线观察，干预结束后 1 周收集随访观察数据。
高、低 SE 站的基线爬楼梯率分别为 12.2%和 7.1%。总体而言，高 SE 站的行人爬楼梯的可能性是低 SE 站的两倍左右（比值比[OR] = 1.91，95%置信区间[CI] = 1.70-2.15）。在两个站点，干预期间爬楼梯的比例均高于基线（OR = 1.48，CI = 1.34-1.63），随访时仍保持升高（OR = 1.24，CI = 1.11-1.39）。两个站点的爬楼梯绝对增加量相似（高 SE，+4.7%；低 SE，+4.5%），表明每个区域的海报效果相当。
低 SE 地区的行人似乎比高 SE 地区的行人更不愿意爬楼梯。然而，爬楼梯干预在两个地区同样有效。
