McCormack Gavin R, Koohsari Mohammad Javad, Oka Koichiro, Friedenreich Christine M, Blackstaffe Anita, Alaniz Francisco Uribe, Farkas Brenlea
Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
J Sport Health Sci. 2019 Nov;8(6):532-539. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.004. Epub 2019 May 9.
Cross-sectional studies provide useful insight about the associations between the built environment and physical activity (PA), particularly when reasons for neighborhood choice are considered. Our study analyzed the relationship between levels of weekly transportation and leisure PA among 3 neighborhood designs, statistically adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and reasons for neighborhood choice.
A stratified random sample of adults (age ≥20 years) living in Calgary (Canada) neighborhoods with different neighborhood designs (grid, warped-grid, and curvilinear) and socioeconomic status completed a self-administered questionnaire capturing PA, sociodemographic characteristics, and reasons for neighborhood choice (response rate = 10.1%; = 1023). Generalized linear models estimated associations between neighborhood design and transportation and leisure PA outcomes (participation (any none) and volume (metabolic equivalent: h/week)), adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status, sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity, education, household income, marital status, children, vehicle access, dog ownership, and injury), and reasons for neighborhood choice (e.g., proximity and quality of recreational and utilitarian destinations, proximity to work, highway access, aesthetics, and sense of community).
Overall, 854 participants had resided in their neighborhood for at least 12 months and provided complete data. Compared with those living in curvilinear neighborhoods, grid neighborhood participants had greater odds ( < 0.05) of participating in any transportation walking (odds ratio (OR) = 2.17), transportation and leisure cycling (OR = 2.39 and OR = 1.70), active transportation (OR = 2.16), and high-intensity leisure PA (≥6 metabolic equivalent; OR = 1.74), respectively. There were no neighborhood differences in the volume of any transportation or leisure PA undertaken. Adjustment for neighborhood selection had minimal impact on the statistical or practical importance of model estimates.
Neighborhood design is associated with PA patterns in adults, independent of reasons for neighborhood choice and sociodemographic factors.
横断面研究为了解建成环境与身体活动(PA)之间的关联提供了有用的见解,尤其是在考虑邻里选择原因的情况下。我们的研究分析了三种邻里设计中每周交通性和休闲性身体活动水平之间的关系,并对社会人口学特征和邻里选择原因进行了统计调整。
从居住在加拿大卡尔加里不同邻里设计(网格状、扭曲网格状和曲线状)以及不同社会经济地位的社区中的成年人(年龄≥20岁)中进行分层随机抽样,这些参与者完成了一份自我管理的问卷,内容包括身体活动、社会人口学特征和邻里选择原因(回复率 = 10.1%;n = 1023)。广义线性模型估计邻里设计与交通性和休闲性身体活动结果(参与情况(有/无)和运动量(代谢当量:小时/周))之间的关联,并对邻里社会经济地位、社会人口学特征(性别、年龄、种族、教育程度、家庭收入、婚姻状况、子女情况、车辆拥有情况、养狗情况和受伤情况)以及邻里选择原因(例如,娱乐和实用目的地的距离和质量、与工作地点的距离、高速公路可达性、美观程度和社区感)进行了调整。
总体而言,854名参与者在其社区居住至少12个月并提供了完整数据。与居住在曲线状邻里的参与者相比,居住在网格状邻里的参与者参与任何交通步行(优势比(OR) = 2.17)、交通性和休闲性骑行(OR = 2.39和OR = 1.70)、主动交通(OR = 2.16)以及高强度休闲身体活动(≥6代谢当量;OR = 1.74)的可能性分别更大(P < 0.05)。在任何交通性或休闲性身体活动的运动量方面,邻里之间没有差异。对邻里选择进行调整对模型估计的统计或实际重要性影响最小。
邻里设计与成年人的身体活动模式相关,独立于邻里选择原因和社会人口学因素。