Simons Dorien, De Bourdeaudhuij Ilse, Clarys Peter, De Cocker Katrien, de Geus Bas, Vandelanotte Corneel, Van Cauwenberg Jelle, Deforche Benedicte
Unit Health Promotion and Education, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, Ghent, Belgium.
Research unit Physical Activity, Nutrition and Health, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, Belgium.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 20;12(3):e0174263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174263. eCollection 2017.
This study aimed to examine potential differences in walking, cycling, public transport and passive transport (car/moped/motorcycle) to work and to other destinations between college and non-college educated working young adults. Secondly, we aimed to investigate which psychosocial and environmental factors are associated with the four transport modes and whether these associations differ between college and non-college educated working young adults.
In this cross-sectional study, 224 working young adults completed an online questionnaire assessing socio-demographic variables (8 items), psychosocial variables (6 items), environmental variables (10 items) and transport mode (4 types) and duration to work/other destinations. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were performed in R.
A trend (p<0.10) indicated that more college educated compared to non-college educated young adults participated in cycling and public transport. However, another trend indicated that cycle time and public transport trips were longer and passive transport trips were shorter in non-college compared to college educated working young adults. In all working young adults, high self-efficacy towards active transport, and high perceived benefits and low perceived barriers towards active and public transport were related to more active and public transport. High social support/norm/modeling towards active, public and passive transport was related to more active, public and passive transport. High neighborhood walkability was related to more walking and less passive transport. Only in non-college educated working young adults, feeling safe from traffic and crime in their neighborhood was related to more active and public transport and less passive transport.
Educational levels should be taken into account when promoting healthy transport behaviors in working young adults. Among non-college educated working young adults, focus should be on increasing active and public transport participation and on increasing neighborhood safety to increase active and public transport use. Among college educated working young adults, more minutes of active transport should be encouraged.
本研究旨在探讨受过大学教育和未受过大学教育的在职青年成年人在步行、骑自行车、乘坐公共交通工具以及被动交通方式（汽车/助力车/摩托车）上下班和前往其他目的地方面的潜在差异。其次，我们旨在调查哪些社会心理和环境因素与这四种交通方式相关，以及这些关联在受过大学教育和未受过大学教育的在职青年成年人之间是否存在差异。
在这项横断面研究中，224名在职青年成年人完成了一份在线问卷，评估社会人口统计学变量（8项）、社会心理变量（6项）、环境变量（10项）以及交通方式（4种类型）和上下班/前往其他目的地的时长。在R软件中进行零膨胀负二项回归模型分析。
一种趋势（p<0.10）表明，与未受过大学教育的青年成年人相比，受过大学教育的青年成年人更多地选择骑自行车和乘坐公共交通工具。然而，另一种趋势表明，与受过大学教育的在职青年成年人相比，未受过大学教育的在职青年成年人骑自行车的时间和乘坐公共交通工具的行程更长，而被动交通方式的行程更短。在所有在职青年成年人中，对主动交通方式的高自我效能感，以及对主动交通方式和公共交通方式的高感知收益和低感知障碍与更多地选择主动交通方式和公共交通方式相关。对主动交通方式、公共交通方式和被动交通方式的高社会支持/规范/示范与更多地选择主动交通方式、公共交通方式和被动交通方式相关。高邻里步行适宜性与更多的步行和更少的被动交通方式相关。仅在未受过大学教育的在职青年成年人中，感觉邻里交通和犯罪安全与更多地选择主动交通方式和公共交通方式以及更少地选择被动交通方式相关。
在促进在职青年成年人的健康交通行为时，应考虑教育水平。在未受过大学教育的在职青年成年人中，应重点关注增加主动交通方式和公共交通方式的参与度，并提高邻里安全性以增加主动交通方式和公共交通方式的使用。在受过大学教育的在职青年成年人中，应鼓励更多的主动交通方式出行时间。
