Patricia A Sharpe1, Michelle L Granner, Brent Hutto, Barbara E Ainsworth. 1. Prevention Research Center, Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, Prevention Research Center, University of South Carolina, 730 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine associations between environment and policy factors and physical activity. DESIGN: A random-digit-dialed, cross-sectional telephone survey was administered. SETTING: The setting was a two-county area of eastern South Carolina. SUBJECTS: Before weighting, the sample included 1936 adults; 36.9% African-American, 63.1% white, and 60.1% women. The age group distribution was 28.8% 55+ years, 39.3% 35-54 years, and 31.9% 18-34 years of age. The response rate was 62.9%. MEASURES: Six physical activity questions (2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey [BRFSS]) were used to create a dischotomous variable, "meets/does not meet recommendation for moderate or vigorous physical activity." Self-report items assessed knowledge, presence, and use of recreational facilities; presence of environmental and worksite supports; perceived safety; condition of sidewalks; and quality of street lighting. RESULTS: Linear and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Unadjusted odds for meeting the recommendation were significantly greater for well-maintained sidewalks (OR = 1.90); safe areas for walking/jogging (OR = 1.39); knowledge of routes for bicycling (OR = 1.38) and walking/jogging (OR = 1.32); and worksites with sports teams (OR = 1.53), exercise facilities (OR = 1.33), flexible time for exercise (OR = 1.33), and preventive checkups (OR = 1.26). Among persons who met the recommendation, means were greater for number of known walking/jogging routes (p = .04); number of known bicycling routes (p < .01); number of days per month uses tracks, trails, routes, pathways (p < .01); and number of days per month uses outdoor recreation areas (p < .01). CONCLUSION: The results support an association between level of physical activity and environmental and policy factors in two southeastern counties in South Carolina. Limitations of the study include self-reported data and cross-sectional design.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine associations between environment and policy factors and physical activity. DESIGN: A random-digit-dialed, cross-sectional telephone survey was administered. SETTING: The setting was a two-county area of eastern South Carolina. SUBJECTS: Before weighting, the sample included 1936 adults; 36.9% African-American, 63.1% white, and 60.1% women. The age group distribution was 28.8% 55+ years, 39.3% 35-54 years, and 31.9% 18-34 years of age. The response rate was 62.9%. MEASURES: Six physical activity questions (2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey [BRFSS]) were used to create a dischotomous variable, "meets/does not meet recommendation for moderate or vigorous physical activity." Self-report items assessed knowledge, presence, and use of recreational facilities; presence of environmental and worksite supports; perceived safety; condition of sidewalks; and quality of street lighting. RESULTS: Linear and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Unadjusted odds for meeting the recommendation were significantly greater for well-maintained sidewalks (OR = 1.90); safe areas for walking/jogging (OR = 1.39); knowledge of routes for bicycling (OR = 1.38) and walking/jogging (OR = 1.32); and worksites with sports teams (OR = 1.53), exercise facilities (OR = 1.33), flexible time for exercise (OR = 1.33), and preventive checkups (OR = 1.26). Among persons who met the recommendation, means were greater for number of known walking/jogging routes (p = .04); number of known bicycling routes (p < .01); number of days per month uses tracks, trails, routes, pathways (p < .01); and number of days per month uses outdoor recreation areas (p < .01). CONCLUSION: The results support an association between level of physical activity and environmental and policy factors in two southeastern counties in South Carolina. Limitations of the study include self-reported data and cross-sectional design.
Authors: Luisa Franzini; Marc N Elliott; Paula Cuccaro; Mark Schuster; M Janice Gilliland; Jo Anne Grunbaum; Frank Franklin; Susan R Tortolero Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ana V Diez Roux; Kelly R Evenson; Aileen P McGinn; Daniel G Brown; Latetia Moore; Shannon Brines; David R Jacobs Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ron Z Goetzel; Kristin M Baker; Meghan E Short; Xiaofei Pei; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Shaohung Wang; Jennie D Bowen; Enid C Roemer; Beth A Craun; Karen J Tully; Catherine M Baase; David M DeJoy; Mark G Wilson Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Danielle E Schoffman; Sara Wilcox; Andrew T Kaczynski; Stephanie Child; Daheia J Barr-Anderson; Patricia A Sharpe; Melinda Forthofer Journal: J Community Health Date: 2014-12
Authors: Elizabeth Shay; Daniel A Rodriguez; Gihyoug Cho; Kelly J Clifton; Kelly R Evenson Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 3.918