| Literature DB >> 23642107 |
Akilah Dulin-Keita1, Herpreet Kaur Thind, Olivia Affuso, Monica L Baskin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to recent research studies, the built and socioeconomic contexts of neighborhoods are associated with African American adolescents' participation in physical activity and obesity status. However, few research efforts have been devoted to understand how African American adolescents' perceptions of their neighborhood environments may affect physical activity behaviors and obesity status. The objective of the current study was to use a perceived neighborhood disorder conceptual framework to examine whether physical activity mediated the relationship between perceived neighborhood disorder and obesity status among African American adolescents.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23642107 PMCID: PMC3648379 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptives of the perceived neighborhood disorder scale and subscales
| 26.81 ± 8.96 | |
| Physical disorder subscale (4 – 16) | 6.67 ± 2.91 |
| Social disorder subscale (6 – 24) | 8.29 ± 3.55 |
| *Prosocial environment subscale (20–5) | 11.86 ± 4.40 |
±Neighborhood disorder and subscales, values in parentheses represent range of possible values.
*Prosocial environment is reverse coded, with lower scores representing a more prosocial environment.
Demographic characteristics, body mass index and physical activity by quartile of perceived disorder, higher quartiles indicate higher perceived disorder
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | |||||
| 13.99 ± 1.31 | 13.73 ± 1.28 | 14.07 ± 1.38 | 14.05 ± 1.27 | 14.06 ± 1.34 | 0.36 a, 0.784 | |
| 55 | 47.83 | 61.54 | 65.00 | 46.88 | 2.57 a, 0.462 | |
| | | | | | 8.94 a, 0.177 | |
| ≤ $30,000 | 24 (23.76) | 5 (21.74) | 3 (11.54) | 5 (25.00) | 11 (34.38) | |
| $30,001 - $60,000 | 45 (44.55) | 8 (34.78) | 14 (53.85) | 7 (35.00) | 16 (50.00) | |
| $60,001+ | 32 (31.68) | 10 (43.48) | 9 (34.62) | 8 (40.00) | 5 (15.63) | |
| | | | | | 0.331 a, 0.565 | |
| | | | | | ||
| < High school | 4 (3.96) | 2 (8.70) | 1 (3.85) | 0 | 1 (3.13) | |
| High school | 9 (8.91) | 1 (4.35) | 2 (7.69) | 2 (10.00) | 4 (12.50) | |
| Some college | 39 (38.61) | 8 (34.78) | 6 (23.08) | 13 (65.00) | 12 (37.50) | |
| College+ | 49 (48.51) | 12 (52.17) | 17 (65.38) | 5 (25.00) | 15 (46.88) | |
| 65.30 ± 19.77 | 59.12 ± 13.44 | 63.37 ± 16.26 | 61.92 ± 9.71 | 73.42 ± 27.47 | | |
| 64.77 ± 3.71 | 64.05 ± 4.04 | 65.29 ± 3.95 | 64.61 ± 2.83 | 64.97 ±3.81 | | |
| | | | | | 5.77 a, 0.016 | |
| Normal Weight | 57 (56.44) | 14 (60.87) | 16 (61.54) | 23 (60.00) | 15 (46.88) | |
| Overweight | 26 (25.74) | 8 (34.78) | 7 (26.92) | 7 (35.0) | 4 (12.50) | |
| Obese | 18 (17.82) | 1 (4.35) | 3 (11.54) | 1 (5.0) | 13 (40.63) | |
| | | | | | | |
| Sedentary | 1050.34 ± 84.52 | 1040 ± 87.82 | 1045.57 ± 92.91 | 1076.43 ± 71.52 | 1046.38 ± 82.75 | 0.71 b, 0.546 |
| Light | 356.28 ± 75.25 | 356.66 ± 77.58 | 368.09 ± 84.34 | 329.80 ± 51.60 | 358.20 ± 76.86 | 0.96 b, 0.417 |
| Moderate | 26.90 ± 18.46 | 32.19 ± 20.78 | 24.06 ±17.50 | 19.92 ± 14.10 | 29.33 ± 18.76 | 5.20 b, 0.157 |
| Vigorous | 2.81 ± 4.05 | 4.00 ± 5.02 | 2.26 ± 3.24 | 1.96 ± 2.39 | 2.87 ± 4.55 | 3.19b, 0.362 |
| | | | | | | |
| Basketball | 44.83 ± 66.11 | 62.54 ± 87.59 | 43.66 ± 51.42 | 26.02 ± 59.93 | 38.37 ± 55.09 | 0.63b, 0.600 |
| Dance | 8.08 ± 20.20 | 6.43 ± 21.57 | 0 | 19.90 ± 29.30 | 8.47 ± 18.96 | 1.28b, 0 .290 |
| Football | 12.04 ± 28.96 | 22.23 ± 42.75 | 3.75 ± 10.60 | 19.89 ± 35.22 | 5.16 ± 14.25 | 1.51b, 0.224 |
| Walking | 11.03 ± 18.31 | 13.92 ± 25.17 | 14.20 ± 17.63 | 0 | 11.29 ± 14.9 | 1.07b, 0.372 |
Obesity Status categories were developed using the International Obesity Taskforce estimates that correspond to overweight (25 kg/m2) and obesity (30 kg/m2) at 18 years of age.
a, b refer to the test statistic used to test for significant differences between quartiles.
dSelf-reported physical activity logs were completed by the adolescents, the data reported represent the average minutes spent in the most frequently reported activities for boys and girls.
Figure 1Simple mediation model for the relationships between perceived neighborhood disorder and obesity status. Panel (a) path estimates for the direct effect of perceived neighborhood disorder on obesity status (controlling for income, education, education2 -to control for the non-linear effects of education, age and sex) (b) path estimates of the indirect effect of perceived neighborhood disorder on obesity status (controlling for income, education, education2 -to control for the non-linear effects of education, age and sex).
Indirect effects of perceived neighborhood disorder on obesity status among adolescents (unstandardized)
| | | Lower | Upper | |
| Moderate & vigorous physical activity | 0. 000 | 0.003 | -0.010 | 0.004 |