Jerome N Rachele1, Anne M Kavanagh2, Hannah Badland3, Billie Giles-Corti3, Simon Washington4, Gavin Turrell1. 1. School of Public Health and Social Work and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. Gender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. 3. McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. 4. Civil Engineering and Built Environment School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Health Faculty and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with transport modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP), and usual transport mode. METHODS: This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual transport mode (car or motorbike, public transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of transport was the reference category. RESULTS: Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public transport were higher for white collar employees (OR 1.68, 95% CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95% CrI 1.25-2.30) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.23-3.64) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95% CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and transport modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual-level and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind choice of transport mode, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active transport modes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with transport modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP), and usual transport mode. METHODS: This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual transport mode (car or motorbike, public transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of transport was the reference category. RESULTS: Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public transport were higher for white collar employees (OR 1.68, 95% CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95% CrI 1.25-2.30) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95% CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95% CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95% CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.23-3.64) and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95% CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and transport modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual-level and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind choice of transport mode, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active transport modes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Health inequalities; MULTILEVEL MODELLING; Neighborhood/place; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; SOCIAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Authors: Dorien Simons; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Peter Clarys; Katrien De Cocker; Bas de Geus; Corneel Vandelanotte; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Benedicte Deforche Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alex Antonio Florindo; Ligia Vizeu Barrozo; Gavin Turrell; João Paulo Dos Anjos Souza Barbosa; William Cabral-Miranda; Chester Luiz Galvão Cesar; Moisés Goldbaum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tomoko McGaughey; Janae Vlaar; Patti-Jean Naylor; Rhona M Hanning; Lucy Le Mare; Louise C Mâsse Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jaana I Halonen; Anna Pulakka; Jaana Pentti; Minna Kallio; Sofia Koskela; Mika Kivimäki; Ichiro Kawachi; Jussi Vahtera; Sari Stenholm Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-16 Impact factor: 2.692