| Literature DB >> 23685828 |
Yoshinobu Saito1, Yuko Oguma, Shigeru Inoue, Ayumi Tanaka, Yoshitaka Kobori.
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested the importance of the neighborhood environment in determining the specific type of physical activity. However, few studies on this topic have been undertaken in Japan. This study examined the association of three types of physical activity and their associations with individual and neighborhood environmental factors among middle-aged and elderly Japanese. Participants were 2,449 adults aged 40-69 living in Fujisawa city who had undergone health checkups and responded to our survey by mail. Individual factors, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (long form), and its environmental module acted as inputs to the study. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of high levels of moderate-to-vigorous intensity leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), walking for active recreation, and transportation were calculated in relation to individual and neighborhood environmental factors through multiple logistic regression models. Not working and good self-rated health were significantly associated with a higher level of each physical activity outcome. According to the adjusted ORs, higher educational attainment, higher economic status, good access to exercise facilities, and owning motor vehicles were associated with longer LTPA time. However, different sets of factors were associated with longer walking times for recreation and transportation. The results suggest that diverse individual and neighborhood environmental characteristics are associated with different physical activity outcomes. Therefore, customizing environments to become activity-friendly is necessary to increase physical activity effectively among middle-aged and elderly Japanese.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23685828 PMCID: PMC3709362 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10052028
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Distribution of individual and neighborhood environmental attributes entered into the final logistic regression model (n = 1,940).
| Characteristics | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Individual attributes] | |||
| Gender | |||
| Men | 943 | 48.6 | |
| Women | 997 | 51.4 | |
| Age (years) | |||
| 40–49 | 153 | 7.9 | |
| 50–59 | 279 | 14.4 | |
| 60–64 | 527 | 27.2 | |
| 65–69 | 981 | 50.6 | |
| Education(years) | |||
| ≤12 | 1,050 | 54.1 | |
| >12 | 890 | 45.9 | |
| Working status | |||
| Not working | 1,088 | 56.1 | |
| Working | 852 | 43.9 | |
| Household economic status | |||
| Bad/very bad | 868 | 44.7 | |
| Very good/good | 1,072 | 55.3 | |
| Marital status | |||
| Never married | 137 | 7.1 | |
| Married | 1,572 | 81 | |
| Divorced/Widowed | 231 | 11.9 | |
| Presence of children in the household | |||
| Yes | 121 | 6.2 | |
| No | 1,819 | 93.8 | |
| Self-rated health | |||
| Poor/very poor | 360 | 18.6 | |
| Very good/good | 1,580 | 81.4 | |
| Experience strong pain due to orthopedic disorders | |||
| Yes | 95 | 4.9 | |
| No | 1,845 | 95.1 | |
| [Neighborhood environmental attributes] | |||
| Residential density | |||
| Low | 1,096 | 56.5 | |
| High | 844 | 43.5 | |
| Access to shops | |||
| Poor | 585 | 30.2 | |
| Good | 1,355 | 69.8 | |
| Access to public transport | |||
| Poor | 89 | 4.6 | |
| Good | 1,851 | 95.4 | |
| Presence of sidewalks | |||
| No | 760 | 39.2 | |
| Yes | 1,180 | 60.8 | |
| Presence of bicycle lanes | |||
| No | 1,236 | 63.7 | |
| Yes | 704 | 36.3 | |
| Access to exercise facilities | |||
| Poor | 717 | 37.0 | |
| Good | 1,223 | 63.0 | |
| Crime safety | |||
| Not safe | 760 | 39.2 | |
| Safe | 1,180 | 60.8 | |
| Traffic safety | |||
| Not safe | 723 | 37.3 | |
| Safe | 1,217 | 62.7 | |
| Social environment | |||
| Poor | 490 | 25.3 | |
| Good | 1,450 | 74.7 | |
| Aesthetics | |||
| Poor | 840 | 43.3 | |
| Good | 1,100 | 56.7 | |
| Motor vehicles owned | |||
| One or more | 1,638 | 84.4 | |
| None | 302 | 15.6 | |
Note: Percentages do not always add up to 100% because of rounding errors.
Adjusted odds ratios for individual and neighborhood environmental characteristics for moderate-to-vigorous intensity LTPA (n = 1,940) and recreational (n = 1,937)/transport-related (n = 1,896) walking.
| Moderate-to-Vigorous Intensity LTPA | Recreational Walking | Transport-related Walking | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR a | (95% CI) | OR a | (95% CI) | OR a | (95% CI) | |||||
| Gender | ||||||||||
| Men | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Women | 1.00 | (0.82–1.23) | 0.987 | 0.67 | (0.55–0.81) | <0.001 | 1.12 | (0.92–1.36) | 0.243 | |
| Age (years) | ||||||||||
| 65–69 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 60–64 | 0.89 | (0.71–1.13) | 0.339 | 0.87 | (0.70–1.08) | 0.205 | 0.79 | (0.63–0.98) | 0.034 | |
| 50–59 | 0.63 | (0.46–0.87) | 0.005 | 0.56 | (0.42–0.76) | <0.001 | 0.77 | (0.57–1.03) | 0.076 | |
| 40–49 | 1.05 | (0.70–1.58) | 0.809 | 0.35 | (0.23–0.54) | <0.001 | 0.73 | (0.50–1.06) | 0.097 | |
| 0.193 | <0.001 | 0.009 | ||||||||
| Education (years) | ||||||||||
| ≤12 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| >12 | 1.65 | (1.34–2.02) | <0.001 | 0.85 | (0.70–1.03) | 0.088 | 1.01 | (0.83–1.23) | 0.900 | |
| Working status | ||||||||||
| Not working | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Working | 0.69 | (0.56–0.85) | 0.001 | 0.52 | (0.42–0.63) | <0.001 | 0.79 | (0.64–0.96) | 0.018 | |
| Household economic status | ||||||||||
| Bad/very bad | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | |||||||
| Very good/good | 1.40 | (1.14–1.72) | 0.001 | - | 0.83 | (0.68–1.01) | 0.057 | |||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Yes | 0.67 | (0.43–1.03) | 0.071 | 0.69 | (0.45–1.04) | 0.079 | 0.64 | (0.43–0.96) | 0.029 | |
| Self-rated health | ||||||||||
| Poor/very poor | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Very good/good | 2.47 | (1.84–3.31) | <0.001 | 1.75 | (1.37–2.25) | <0.001 | 1.53 | (1.20–1.95) | 0.001 | |
| Yes | - | 1.00 | - | |||||||
| No | - | 1.57 | (1.00–2.49) | 0.052 | - | |||||
| Residential density | ||||||||||
| Low | 1.00 | - | ||||||||
| High | 0.84 | (0.69–1.03) | 0.090 | - | ||||||
| Access to exercise facilities | ||||||||||
| Poor | 1.00 | - | - | |||||||
| Good | 1.27 | (1.03–1.56) | 0.022 | - | - | |||||
| Motor vehicles owned | ||||||||||
| One or more | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | |||||||
| None | 0.65 | (0.49–0.87) | 0.003 | - | 2.16 | (1.66–2.82) | <0.001 | |||
| Social environment | ||||||||||
| Poor | - | 1.00 | - | |||||||
| Good | - | 1.41 | (1.12–1.76) | 0.003 | - | |||||
| Aesthetics | ||||||||||
| Poor | - | 1.00 | - | |||||||
| Good | - | 1.34 | (1.10–1.63) | 0.004 | - | |||||
| Access to shops | ||||||||||
| Poor | - | - | 1.00 | |||||||
| Good | - | - | 1.41 | (1.15–1.74) | 0.001 | |||||
| Presence of sidewalks | ||||||||||
| Poor | - | - | 1.00 | |||||||
| Good | - | - | 1.26 | (1.04–1.53) | 0.018 | |||||
LTPA: leisure-time physical activity excluding walking; OR, odds ratios; CI, confidence interval; a Active participants were defined as those engaging in moderate-to-vigorous LTPA for ≥10 min/week, walking for recreation for ≥70 min/week, and walking for transportation for ≥100 min/week. Multivariate logistic regression modeling involved the forced entry of gender, age (4 categories), and education (2 categories) in the first block. In the second block, a stepwise backward elimination procedure was used to identify the independent variables that were significantly related to moderate-to-vigorous LTPA, recreational walking, and transportation walking, respectively.