Jennifer C Robinson1, Tiffany L Carson2, Erica R Johnson3, Claudia M Hardy4, James M Shikany2, Eva Green4, Lillie M Willis5, John V Marron4, Yufeng Li2, Choo Hyung Lee2, Monica L Baskin2. 1. School of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA. Electronic address: jcrobinson@umc.edu. 2. Division of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 5. American Cancer Society, Inc., Hattiesburg, MS, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Leisure-time physical activity in the United States is lower rural areas and the South and has been linked to socioeconomic and environmental aspects of where people live. The purpose of this study is to assess the built environment and policies for physical activity in rural communities. METHODS: Eight rural communities in Alabama and Mississippi were assessed in 2011 using the Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) street segment (SSA), town-wide (TWA), and town program and policies (PPA) assessment tools. Community Health Advisors Trained as Research Partners (CHARPS) and local staff conducted the assessments. The TWA and PPA were scored by domain and total scores. Data were analyzed using descriptive and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: 117 segments were assessed in 22 towns in 8 counties. Built environmental barriers existed in all communities. Sidewalks were available in only 10-40% of the segments. TWA identified parks and playgrounds as the most available community feature. PPA scores indicated few policies for physical activity outside of school settings with mean scores higher in Mississippi compared to Alabama (61 vs. 49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple components of rural communities can be successfully assessed by CHARPs using RALA tools, providing information about resources and barriers for physical activity.
OBJECTIVE: Leisure-time physical activity in the United States is lower rural areas and the South and has been linked to socioeconomic and environmental aspects of where people live. The purpose of this study is to assess the built environment and policies for physical activity in rural communities. METHODS: Eight rural communities in Alabama and Mississippi were assessed in 2011 using the Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) street segment (SSA), town-wide (TWA), and town program and policies (PPA) assessment tools. Community Health Advisors Trained as Research Partners (CHARPS) and local staff conducted the assessments. The TWA and PPA were scored by domain and total scores. Data were analyzed using descriptive and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: 117 segments were assessed in 22 towns in 8 counties. Built environmental barriers existed in all communities. Sidewalks were available in only 10-40% of the segments. TWA identified parks and playgrounds as the most available community feature. PPA scores indicated few policies for physical activity outside of school settings with mean scores higher in Mississippi compared to Alabama (61 vs. 49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple components of rural communities can be successfully assessed by CHARPs using RALA tools, providing information about resources and barriers for physical activity.
Authors: Stephanie S Frost; R Turner Goins; Rebecca H Hunter; Steven P Hooker; Lucinda L Bryant; Judy Kruger; Delores Pluto Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2010 Mar-Apr
Authors: Anush Yousefian; Erin Hennessy; M Renee Umstattd; Christina D Economos; Jeffrey S Hallam; Raymond R Hyatt; David Hartley Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Bonnie K Sanderson; H Russell Foushee; Vera Bittner; Carol E Cornell; Verana Stalker; Stacie Shelton; LeaVonne Pulley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ellen K Barnidge; Catherine Radvanyi; Kathleen Duggan; Freda Motton; Imogene Wiggs; Elizabeth A Baker; Ross C Brownson Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Chirag J Patel; David H Rehkopf; John T Leppert; Walter M Bortz; Mark R Cullen; Glenn M Chertow; John Pa Ioannidis Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Renée Umstattd Meyer; Justin B Moore; Christiaan Abildso; Michael B Edwards; Abigail Gamble; Monica L Baskin Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2016 Sep-Oct
Authors: Anna M Gorczyca; Richard A Washburn; Lauren Ptomey; Matthew S Mayo; Debra K Sullivan; Cheryl A Gibson; Robert Lee; Sarah Stolte; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Andrew J Perrin; Neal Caren; Asheley C Skinner; Adebowale Odulana; Eliana M Perrin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: M Renée Umstattd Meyer; Cynthia K Perry; Jasmin C Sumrall; Megan S Patterson; Shana M Walsh; Stephanie C Clendennen; Steven P Hooker; Kelly R Evenson; Karin V Goins; Katie M Heinrich; Nancy O'Hara Tompkins; Amy A Eyler; Sydney Jones; Rachel Tabak; Cheryl Valko Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Cynthia K Perry; Corey Nagel; Linda K Ko; Catherine Duggan; Sandra Linde; Edgar A Rodriguez; Beti Thompson Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2015-09-21