| Literature DB >> 23049574 |
Katherine Baldock1, Catherine Paquet, Natasha Howard, Neil Coffee, Graeme Hugo, Anne Taylor, Robert Adams, Mark Daniel.
Abstract
A substantial body of research has arisen concerning the relationships between objective residential area features, particularly area-level socioeconomic status and cardiometabolic outcomes. Little research has explored residents' perceptions of such features and how these might relate to cardiometabolic outcomes. Perceptions of environments are influenced by individual and societal factors, and may not correspond to objective reality. Understanding relations between environmental perceptions and health is important for the development of environment interventions. This study evaluated associations between perceptions of local built and social environmental attributes and metabolic syndrome, and tested whether walking behaviour mediated these associations. Individual-level data were drawn from a population-based biomedical cohort study of adults in Adelaide, South Australia (North West Adelaide Health Study). Participants' local-area perceptions were analysed in cross-sectional associations with metabolic syndrome using multilevel regression models (n = 1, 324). A nonparametric bootstrapping procedure evaluated whether walking mediated these associations. Metabolic syndrome was negatively associated with greater local land-use mix, positive aesthetics, and greater infrastructure for walking, and was positively associated with greater perceived crime and barriers to walking. Walking partially mediated associations between metabolic syndrome and perceived environmental features. Initiatives targeting residents' perceptions of local areas may enhance the utility of environmental interventions to improve population health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23049574 PMCID: PMC3463172 DOI: 10.1155/2012/589409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1(a) Direct association between perceived environmental features and metabolic syndrome. (b) Indirect association between perceived environmental features and metabolic syndrome through walking time.
Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 1, 324).
|
| Mean (SD) or % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 1324 | 54.3 (14.3) |
| Sex | ||
| Male (%) | 609 | 46.0 (43.3–48.7) |
| Female (%) | 715 | 54.0 (51.3–56.7) |
| Marital status | ||
| Married, living with partner (%) | 916 | 69.2 (66.7–71.6) |
| Separated, divorced, widowed, never married (%) | 408 | 30.8 (28.3–33.3) |
| Education level | ||
| Less than Bachelor degree (%) | 1139 | 86.0 (84.1–87.8) |
| Bachelor degree or higher (%) | 185 | 14.0 (12.2–15.9) |
| Annual household income | ||
| Less than $20,001 (%) | 298 | 22.5 (20.3–24.8) |
| $20,001 to $60,000 (%) | 633 | 47.8 (45.1–50.5) |
| More than $60,000 (%) | 393 | 29.7 (27.3–32.2) |
| Work status | ||
| Employed (%) | 735 | 55.5 (52.8–58.2) |
| Not employed (%) | 589 | 44.5 (41.8–47.2) |
| Area-level median weekly household income (AUD) | 1324 | 864.05 (201.36) |
| Walking time in previous week (mins) | 1324 | 113.4 (196.8) |
Characteristics of factors derived from the Australian version of the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (n = 1, 656).
| Factor | No. of items | Percent of variance explained | Cronbach's alphaa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetics | 6 | 17.75 | 0.73 |
| Crime | 6 | 11.78 | 0.80 |
| Infrastructure for walking | 10 | 6.05 | 0.74 |
| Access to services | 3 | 5.20 | 0.85 |
| Barriers to walking | 6 | 4.79 | 0.58 |
aBased on items with loadings ≥ 0.4.
Factor structure of the Australian version of the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (n = 1, 656).
| Item no.a | Item | Item loading on each factorb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | ||
| A1 | Can do most shopping | 0.81 | ||||
| A2 | Many shops within easy walking distance | 0.89 | ||||
| A3 | Many places to go within easy walking distance | 0.85 | ||||
| A4 | Easy to walk to public transport stop | −0.54 | ||||
| A5 | Streets in local area are hilly | 0.39 | ||||
| A6 | Major barriers to walking | 0.53 | ||||
| A7 | Car parking difficult in shopping areas | 0.50 | ||||
| B1 | Footpaths on most of the streets | −0.75 | ||||
| B2 | Footpaths are well maintained | −0.63 | ||||
| B3 | Park or nature reserve easily accessible | −0.43 | ||||
| B4 | Grass/dirt strip separating streets from footpaths | −0.58 | ||||
| B5 | Footpaths separated from road/traffic by parked cars | 0.28 | ||||
| B6 | Bicycle or walking paths easily accessible | −0.50 | ||||
| C1 | Lots of greenery around the local area | 0.63 | ||||
| C2 | Tree cover or canopy along footpaths | 0.50 | ||||
| C3 | Many interesting things to look at | 0.74 | ||||
| C4 | Local area free from litter, rubbish, or graffiti | 0.53 | ||||
| C5 | Attractive buildings and homes | 0.67 | ||||
| C6 | Pleasant natural features | 0.70 | ||||
| D1 | Lots of traffic along most nearby streets | 0.68 | ||||
| D2 | Live on or near main arterial road or throughway for motor vehicles | 0.58 | ||||
| D3 | Speed of traffic usually slow | 0.29 | ||||
| D4 | Many traffic slowing devices | −0.38 | ||||
| D5 | Busy streets have pedestrian crossings and traffic signals | −0.50 | ||||
| D6 | A lot of exhaust fumes | 0.61 | ||||
| E1 | Streets are well lit at night | −0.51 | ||||
| E2 | A lot of petty crime | 0.78 | ||||
| E3 | A lot of major crime | 0.79 | ||||
| E4 | Level of crime makes it unsafe to walk during the day | 0.66 | ||||
| E5 | Level of crime makes it unsafe to walk at night | 0.82 | ||||
| E6 | Feel safe walking home from a bus or train stop at night | −0.62 | ||||
aNEWS-AU subscales: [51] A: access to services; B: infrastructure for walking/cycling; C: aesthetics; D: traffic safety; E: crime safety. bFactors derived from this analysis: factor 1: aesthetics; factor 2: crime; factor 3: infrastructure for walking; factor 4: access to services; factor 5: barriers to walking.
Multivariable associations between each feature of the perceived environment and metabolic syndrome (n = 1, 324).
| Model 1, Path ca | Model 2, Path c′b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| |
| Local land-use mix | 0.87 | 0.77, 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.87 | 0.77, 1.00 | 0.04 |
| Aesthetics | 0.88 | 0.77, 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.88 | 0.78, 1.00 | 0.06 |
| Crime | 1.15 | 1.01, 1.31 | 0.04 | 1.15 | 1.01, 1.31 | 0.04 |
| Infrastructure for walking | 0.85 | 0.75, 0.97 | 0.01 | 0.85 | 0.75, 0.97 | 0.02 |
| Access to services | 0.93 | 0.82, 1.05 | 0.24 | 0.95 | 0.84, 1.07 | 0.39 |
| Barriers to walking | 1.16 | 1.03, 1.32 | 0.02 | 1.16 | 1.02, 1.31 | 0.02 |
aAdjusted for participant age, sex, marital status, income, education, work status, and area-level income. bAdjusted for participant age, sex, marital status, income, education, work status, area-level income, and walking time.
Indirect effect of walking time in associations between perceived environmental features and metabolic syndrome (n = 1, 324).
| Perceived environmental feature | Indirect effect estimate ( | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Local land-use mix | −0.00253 | −0.00428, − 0.000692 |
| Aesthetics | −0.00196 | −0.00337, − 0.000595 |
| Crime | 0.00314 | 0.000960, 0.00538 |
| Access to services | −0.00530 | −0.00906, − 0.00161 |
| Barriers to walking | 0.00097 | 0.000307, 0.00174 |