• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于商场的爬楼梯干预措施的统计总结。

A statistical summary of mall-based stair-climbing interventions.

机构信息

School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Phys Act Health. 2011 May;8(4):558-65. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.4.558.

DOI:10.1123/jpah.8.4.558
PMID:21597129
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Stair climbing is an accessible activity with proven health benefits. This article summarizes the effectiveness of mall-based stair-climbing interventions, while controlling for, and examining, potential moderators of stair/escalator choice.

METHODS

Six comparable studies were identified, which used poster/ banner prompts to promote stair choice. Original data were combined and analyzed using logistic regression. Pedestrians' stair/escalator choices (N=127,221) provided the dichotomous outcome variable. Demographics (eg, gender), condition (baseline vs. intervention), and 'pedestrian traffic volume' were entered as potential moderators. To examine durability of effects, the rate of stair climbing in each half of the intervention period was compared.

RESULTS

Overall, stair choice was more common in men (odds ratio [OR]=1.72), under-60s (OR=1.91), Whites (OR=1.38), those without accompanying children (OR=1.53), and periods of high traffic (OR=1.55). The rate of stair climbing increased in the intervention phase relative to baseline (OR=2.09), with greater effects among women (OR=1.99) versus men (OR=1.86), and under-60s (OR=2.62) versus over-60s (OR=1.93). Intervention effects fell slightly during the second half of the intervention period (OR=0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional mass media campaigns engage an extra 5.0% of people in physical activity. The current calculations indicate that comparatively simple poster/banner prompts can increase stair climbing in mall settings by 6.0%.

摘要

背景

爬楼梯是一种可行的活动,已被证明对健康有益。本文总结了基于购物中心的爬楼梯干预措施的有效性,同时控制和检查了楼梯/自动扶梯选择的潜在调节因素。

方法

确定了六项可比的研究,这些研究使用海报/横幅提示来促进楼梯选择。使用逻辑回归对原始数据进行合并和分析。行人的楼梯/自动扶梯选择(N=127221)提供了二项式结果变量。将人口统计学因素(例如性别)、条件(基线与干预)和“行人交通量”作为潜在的调节因素。为了检验效果的持久性,比较了干预期每一半的爬楼梯率。

结果

总体而言,男性(优势比[OR]=1.72)、60 岁以下(OR=1.91)、白人(OR=1.38)、没有随行儿童的人(OR=1.53)和高交通时段(OR=1.55)更常选择楼梯。与基线相比,干预期的爬楼梯率增加(OR=2.09),女性(OR=1.99)比男性(OR=1.86)和 60 岁以下(OR=2.62)比 60 岁以上(OR=1.93)的效果更大。干预效果在干预期的后半段略有下降(OR=0.92)。

结论

传统的大众媒体宣传活动使额外的 5.0%的人参与到体育活动中。目前的计算表明,相对简单的海报/横幅提示可以将购物中心的爬楼梯率提高 6.0%。

相似文献

1
A statistical summary of mall-based stair-climbing interventions.基于商场的爬楼梯干预措施的统计总结。
J Phys Act Health. 2011 May;8(4):558-65. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.4.558.
2
Promoting stair climbing: stair-riser banners are better than posters... sometimes.推广爬楼梯:楼梯竖板横幅有时比海报效果更好。
Prev Med. 2008 Apr;46(4):308-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.009. Epub 2007 Nov 22.
3
An informational stair climbing intervention with greater effects in overweight pedestrians.信息型爬楼梯干预对超重行人的效果更大。
Health Educ Res. 2010 Dec;25(6):936-44. doi: 10.1093/her/cyq043. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
4
Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?在楼梯和自动扶梯之间的选择点增加身体活动的提示:那自动扶梯攀爬者呢?
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Jul 16;9(4):656-662. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby080.
5
Effects of environmental changes in a stair climbing intervention: generalization to stair descent.爬楼梯干预中环境变化的影响:对下楼梯的推广。
Am J Health Promot. 2007 Sep-Oct;22(1):38-44. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-22.1.38.
6
Review Article: Increasing physical activity with point-of-choice prompts--a systematic review.综述文章:利用选择点提示增加身体活动——系统综述。
Scand J Public Health. 2010 Aug;38(6):633-8. doi: 10.1177/1403494810375865. Epub 2010 Jul 2.
7
Promoting stair climbing: intervention effects generalize to a subsequent stair ascent.促进爬楼梯:干预效果可推广至后续的楼梯攀登。
Am J Health Promot. 2007 Nov-Dec;22(2):114-9. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-22.2.114.
8
Promoting Stair Climbing in a Worksite and Public Setting: Are Footprints Enough?在工作场所和公共场所推广爬楼梯:脚印就足够了吗?
Am J Health Promot. 2018 Mar;32(3):527-535. doi: 10.1177/0890117117694284. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
9
Prompt before the choice is made: effects of a stair-climbing intervention in university buildings.选择前的提示:大学建筑中爬楼梯干预的效果。
Br J Health Psychol. 2012 Sep;17(3):631-43. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02060.x. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
10
Promoting physical activity in a low socioeconomic area: results from an intervention targeting stair climbing.促进低社会经济地区的身体活动:针对爬楼梯的干预措施的结果。
Prev Med. 2011 May;52(5):352-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.004. Epub 2011 Mar 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Nudging Hospital Visitors Towards Stair Use, in Greece.引导希腊医院访客使用楼梯
J Prev (2022). 2025 Apr;46(2):189-199. doi: 10.1007/s10935-025-00827-0. Epub 2025 Feb 8.
2
A longitudinal controlled signage intervention to increase stair use at university buildings: Process and impact evaluation using RE-AIM framework.一项旨在增加大学建筑楼梯使用的纵向对照标识干预措施:使用 RE-AIM 框架进行的过程和影响评估。
Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 18;11:1079241. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1079241. eCollection 2023.
3
Brief Vigorous Stair Climbing Effectively Improves Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial.
短暂剧烈爬楼梯可有效改善冠心病患者的心肺适能:一项随机试验
Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Feb 16;3:630912. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.630912. eCollection 2021.
4
Signage Interventions for Stair Climbing at Work: More than 700,000 Reasons for Caution.工作场所楼梯攀爬的标识干预措施:超过 70 万条需要谨慎的理由。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 8;16(19):3782. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193782.
5
Learnt effects of environmental cues on transport-related walking; disrupting habits with health promotion?学习环境线索对与交通相关的步行的影响;用健康促进来打破习惯?
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 1;14(8):e0220308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220308. eCollection 2019.
6
Is there sufficient evidence regarding signage-based stair use interventions? A sequential meta-analysis.关于基于标识的楼梯使用干预措施,是否有足够的证据?一项序贯荟萃分析。
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 28;7(11):e012459. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012459.
7
Does perceived steepness deter stair climbing when an alternative is available?当有其他选择时,感知到的陡峭程度会阻碍人们爬楼梯吗?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Jun;21(3):637-44. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0535-8.
8
Environmental modifications and 2-year measured and self-reported stair-use: a worksite randomized trial.环境改造与为期两年的测量及自我报告的楼梯使用情况:一项工作场所随机试验
J Prim Prev. 2013 Dec;34(6):413-22. doi: 10.1007/s10935-013-0323-2.
9
Moderate to vigorous physical activity and weight outcomes: does every minute count?中高强度体力活动与体重结局:每一分钟都算数吗?
Am J Health Promot. 2013 Sep-Oct;28(1):41-9. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.120606-QUAL-286. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
10
The use of point-of-decision prompts to increase stair climbing in Singapore.使用决策点提示来增加新加坡的爬楼梯量。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Jan 7;10(1):210-8. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10010210.