STUDY OBJECTIVE: The focus of physical activity promotion is moving from methods for increasing health enhancing physical activity on the individual level to higher level strategies including environmental and policy approaches. Scientific inquiry, traditionally related to individual-based strategies, requires adaptation and refinement when environmental and policy changes become more relevant. The objective of this study is to investigate the significance for behaviour and health of community-based environments that encourage physical activity. DESIGN AND SETTING: The article presents data and results from a cross sectional comparative survey of the general population in six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany (East and West), Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland). Specifically, the relation between perceived community-based opportunities for physical activity, self reported physical activity, and self rated health status is investigated. PARTICIPANTS: Representative samples of general populations (adults 18 years or older). Overall response rate: 53.5%. Sample sizes realised: Belgium: n = 389; Finland: n = 400; Germany (East): n = 913; Germany (West): n = 489; Netherlands: n = 366; Spain: n = 380; Switzerland: n =406. MAIN RESULTS: Analyses show that best opportunities are reported by people who are lightly to moderately physically active. People's self rated health is moderately, but significantly associated with both perceived opportunities, and physical activity itself. These predictors interact in that especially for women, the health impact of physical activity is more pronounced in case of good opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The paper shows the potential of opportunities within residential and community environments with regard to physical activity, both for behaviour and health. Opportunities may enable the population, especially women, to develop an active lifestyle, and thus improve their health. Future studies with objective indicators for physical activity related environments should test the findings that are based on perceptions.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The focus of physical activity promotion is moving from methods for increasing health enhancing physical activity on the individual level to higher level strategies including environmental and policy approaches. Scientific inquiry, traditionally related to individual-based strategies, requires adaptation and refinement when environmental and policy changes become more relevant. The objective of this study is to investigate the significance for behaviour and health of community-based environments that encourage physical activity. DESIGN AND SETTING: The article presents data and results from a cross sectional comparative survey of the general population in six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany (East and West), Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland). Specifically, the relation between perceived community-based opportunities for physical activity, self reported physical activity, and self rated health status is investigated. PARTICIPANTS: Representative samples of general populations (adults 18 years or older). Overall response rate: 53.5%. Sample sizes realised: Belgium: n = 389; Finland: n = 400; Germany (East): n = 913; Germany (West): n = 489; Netherlands: n = 366; Spain: n = 380; Switzerland: n =406. MAIN RESULTS: Analyses show that best opportunities are reported by people who are lightly to moderately physically active. People's self rated health is moderately, but significantly associated with both perceived opportunities, and physical activity itself. These predictors interact in that especially for women, the health impact of physical activity is more pronounced in case of good opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The paper shows the potential of opportunities within residential and community environments with regard to physical activity, both for behaviour and health. Opportunities may enable the population, especially women, to develop an active lifestyle, and thus improve their health. Future studies with objective indicators for physical activity related environments should test the findings that are based on perceptions.
Authors: Jolanda Maas; Robert A Verheij; Peter P Groenewegen; Sjerp de Vries; Peter Spreeuwenberg Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Julia Bolívar; Antonio Daponte; Miguel Rodríguez; José Juan Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: José Antonio Serrano-Sanchez; Angela Lera-Navarro; Cecilia Dorado-García; Juan José González-Henriquez; Joaquin Sanchis-Moysi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Veerle Van Holle; Benedicte Deforche; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Liesbet Goubert; Lea Maes; Nico Van de Weghe; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Heleen Spittaels; Charlie Foster; Jean-Michel Oppert; Harry Rutter; Pekka Oja; Michael Sjöström; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 6.457