Is a perceived supportive physical environment important for self-reported leisure time physical activity among socioeconomically disadvantaged women with poor psychosocial characteristics? An observational study

BMC Public Health

David Crawford²  Kylie Ball²  Verity J Cleland¹ 

[1] Current address: Menzies Research Institute Tasmania, Private Bag 23, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia;Centre for Physical Activity & Nutrition Research, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

关键词: Survey research;    Cross-sectional;    Socioeconomic disadvantage;    Health behaviour;    Social-ecological model;   

Others  :  1162400
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-280

 received in 2012-08-14, accepted in 2013-03-13,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Over the past decade, studies and public health interventions that target the physical environment as an avenue for promoting physical activity have increased in number. While it appears that a supportive physical environment has a role to play in promoting physical activity, social-ecological models emphasise the importance of considering other multiple levels of influence on behaviour, including individual (e.g. self-efficacy, intentions, enjoyment) and social (e.g. social support, access to childcare) factors (psychosocial factors). However, not everyone has these physical activity-promoting psychosocial characteristics; it remains unclear what contribution the environment makes to physical activity among these groups. This study aimed to examine the association between the perceived physical environment and self-reported leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) among women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas demonstrating different psychosocial characteristics.

Methods

In 2007–8, 3765 women (18–45 years) randomly selected from low socioeconomic areas in Victoria, Australia, self-reported LTPA, and individual, social and physical environmental factors hypothesised within a social-ecological framework to influence LTPA. Psychosocial and environment scores were created. Associations between environment scores and categories of LTPA (overall and stratified by thirds of perceived environment scores) were examined using generalised ordered logistic regression.

Results

Women with medium and high perceived environment scores had 20-38% and 44-70% greater odds respectively of achieving higher levels of LTPA than women with low environment scores. When stratified by thirds of psychosocial factor scores, these associations were largely attenuated and mostly became non-significant. However, women with the lowest psychosocial scores but medium or high environment scores had 76% and 58% higher odds respectively of achieving ≥120 minutes/week (vs. <120 minutes/week) LTPA.

Conclusions

Acknowledging the cross-sectional study design, the findings suggest that a physical environment perceived to be supportive of physical activity might help women with less favourable psychosocial characteristics achieve moderate amounts of LTPA (i.e. ≥120 minutes/week). This study provides further support for research and public health interventions to target perceptions of the physical environment as a key component of strategies to promote physical activity.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Cleland et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gidlow C, Johnston LH, Crone D, Ellis N, James D: A systematic review of the relationship between socio-economic position and physical activity. Health Educ J 2006, 65:338-367.
• [2]Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W: Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002, 34(12):1996-2001.
• [3]Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CB, Giskes K, Brug J, Kunst AE, Burdorf A, van Lenthe FJ: Socioeconomic inequalities in occupational, leisure-time, and transport related physical activity among European adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:116. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Sallis J, Owen N: Ecological models of health behavior. In Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research & Practice. 3rd edition. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass; 2002:462-484.
• [5]Stokols D: Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol 1992, 47(1):6-22.
• [6]Ball K, Timperio A, Salmon J, Giles-Corti B, Roberts R, Crawford D: Personal, social and environmental determinants of educational inequalities in walking: a multilevel study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61(2):108-114.
• [7]Cleland VJ, Ball K, Salmon J, Timperio AF, Crawford DA: Personal, social and environmental correlates of resilience to physical inactivity among women from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Health Educ Res 2010, 25(2):268-281.
• [8]Cleland V, Ball K, Hume C, Timperio A, King AC, Crawford D: Individual, social and environmental correlates of physical activity among women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Soc Sci Med 2010, 70(12):2011-2018.
• [9]Bauman A, Bull FC: Environmental correlates of physical activity and walking in adults and children: A review of reviews. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2007.
• [10]Plotnikoff RC, Pickering MA, Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Spence JC: A test of cognitive mediation in a 12-month physical activity workplace intervention: does it explain behaviour change in women? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010, 7:32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Fjeldsoe BS, Miller YD, Marshall AL: Social cognitive mediators of the effect of the MobileMums intervention on physical activity. Health Psychol 2012. in press
• [12]Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ: The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med 2002, 54(12):1793-1812.
• [13]Pan SY, Cameron C, Desmeules M, Morrison H, Craig CL, Jiang X: Individual, social, environmental, and physical environmental correlates with physical activity among Canadians: a cross-sectional study. BMC Publ Health 2009, 9:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Cleland VJ, Hume C, Crawford D, Timperio A, Hesketh K, Baur L, Welch N, Salmon J, Ball K: Urban–rural comparison of weight status among women and children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Med J Aust 2010, 192(3):137-140.
• [15]MacFarlane AM, Abbott GR, Crawford DA, Ball K: Sociodemographic and behavioural correlates of weight status among women with children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Int J Obes (Lond) 2009, 33(11):1289-1298.
• [16]McLennan W: 1996 Census of population and housing: socioeconomic index for areas. In. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra; 1998.
• [17]Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis JF: International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35(8):1381-1395.
• [18]Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora T: Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2005, 33(4):175-181.
• [19]Sharpe PA, Granner ML, Hutto BE, Wilcox S, Peck L, Addy CL: Correlates of physical activity among African American and white women. Am J Health Behav 2008, 32(6):701-713.
• [20]Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS: Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport 1992, 63(1):60-66.
• [21]Kendzierski D, DeCarlo KJ: Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation studies. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1991, 13:50-64.
• [22]Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ: Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking. Am J Public Health 2003, 93(9):1583-1589.
• [23]Sallis JF, Grossman RM, Pinski RB, Patterson TL, Nader PR: The development of scales to measure social support for diet and exercise behaviors. Prev Med 1987, 16(6):825-836.
• [24]Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Morenoff JD, Raghunathan T: Assessing the measurement properties of neighborhood scales: from psychometrics to ecometrics. Am J Epidemiol 2007, 165(8):858-867.
• [25]World Health Organization: Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.
• [26]Williams R: Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional-odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J 2006, 6:58-82.
• [27]Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Timperio A, Van Niel K, Pikora TJ, Bull FC, Shilton T, Bulsara M: Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia. Prev Med 2008, 46(1):46-54.
• [28]Australian Department of Health and Aged Care: National physical activity guidelines for Australians. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care; 1999:1-2.
• [29]Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A: Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the american college of sports medicine and the american heart association. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007, 39(8):1423-1434.
• [30]Australian Sports Commission: Participation in Exercise, Recreation and Sport: Annual Report 2009. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission; 2009.
• [31]Rothman KJ: Modern Epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.; 1986.
• [32]Australian Bureau of Statistics: Motor Vehicle Census (cat. no. 9309.0). Canberra: ABS; 2009.
• [33]Cleland V, Ball K, Crawford D: Socioeconomic position and physical activity among women in Melbourne, Australia: does the use of different socioeconomic indicators matter? Soc Sci Med 2012, 74(10):1578-1583.