BACKGROUND: Little is known about the neighbourhood characteristics of workplaces, the extent to which they are independently and synergistically correlated with residential environments, and their impact on health. METHODS: This study investigated cross-sectional relationships between home and workplace neighbourhood environments with body mass index (BMI) in 1503 working participants of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis with mean age 59.6 (SD=7.4). Neighbourhood features were socioeconomic status (SES), social environment (aesthetic quality, safety and social cohesion) and physical environment (walking environment, recreational facilities and food stores) derived from census data, locational data on businesses and survey data. Paired t tests and correlations compared environments overall and by distance between locations. Cross-classified multilevel models estimated associations with BMI. RESULTS: Home neighbourhoods had more favourable social environments while workplaces had more favourable SES and physical environments. Workplace and home measures were correlated (0.39-0.70), and differences between home and workplaces were larger as distance increased. Associations between BMI and neighbourhood SES and recreational facilities were stronger for home environment (p≤0.05) but did not significantly differ for healthy food, safety or social cohesion. Healthy food availability at home and work appeared to act synergistically (interaction p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of workplace environment may enhance our understanding of how place affects BMI.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the neighbourhood characteristics of workplaces, the extent to which they are independently and synergistically correlated with residential environments, and their impact on health. METHODS: This study investigated cross-sectional relationships between home and workplace neighbourhood environments with body mass index (BMI) in 1503 working participants of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis with mean age 59.6 (SD=7.4). Neighbourhood features were socioeconomic status (SES), social environment (aesthetic quality, safety and social cohesion) and physical environment (walking environment, recreational facilities and food stores) derived from census data, locational data on businesses and survey data. Paired t tests and correlations compared environments overall and by distance between locations. Cross-classified multilevel models estimated associations with BMI. RESULTS: Home neighbourhoods had more favourable social environments while workplaces had more favourable SES and physical environments. Workplace and home measures were correlated (0.39-0.70), and differences between home and workplaces were larger as distance increased. Associations between BMI and neighbourhood SES and recreational facilities were stronger for home environment (p≤0.05) but did not significantly differ for healthy food, safety or social cohesion. Healthy food availability at home and work appeared to act synergistically (interaction p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of workplace environment may enhance our understanding of how place affects BMI.
Authors: Amy R Eisenstein; Thomas R Prohaska; Judy Kruger; William A Satariano; Steven Hooker; David Buchner; Melissa Kealey; Rebecca H Hunter Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2011-04-20
Authors: Tamara Dubowitz; Madhumita Ghosh-Dastidar; Christine Eibner; Mary E Slaughter; Meenakshi Fernandes; Eric A Whitsel; Chloe E Bird; Adria Jewell; Karen L Margolis; Wenjun Li; Yvonne L Michael; Regina A Shih; Joann E Manson; José J Escarce Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Margaret A McDowell; Carolyn J Tabak; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonggyu Baek; Jana A Hirsch; Kari Moore; Loni Philip Tabb; Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez; Lynda D Lisabeth; Ana V Diez-Roux; Brisa N Sánchez Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Kari A Moore; Jana A Hirsch; Carmella August; Christina Mair; Brisa N Sanchez; Ana V Diez Roux Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Salma Shariff-Marco; Mindy DeRouen; Theresa H M Keegan; Irene H Yen; Mahasin Mujahid; William A Satariano; Sally L Glaser Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martha E Billings; Dayna A Johnson; Guido Simonelli; Kari Moore; Sanjay R Patel; Ana V Diez Roux; Susan Redline Journal: Chest Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Amy Carroll-Scott; Kathryn Gilstad-Hayden; Lisa Rosenthal; Adam Eldahan; Catherine McCaslin; Susan M Peters; Jeannette R Ickovics Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Brian E Saelens; S Sonia Arteaga; David Berrigan; Rachel M Ballard; Amy A Gorin; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley; Charlotte Pratt; Jill Reedy; Shannon N Zenk Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Rachel C Nethery; Joshua L Warren; Amy H Herring; Kari A B Moore; Kelly R Evenson; Ana V Diez-Roux Journal: Health Place Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Jana A Hirsch; Kari A Moore; Philippa J Clarke; Daniel A Rodriguez; Kelly R Evenson; Shannon J Brines; Melissa A Zagorski; Ana V Diez Roux Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 4.897