| Literature DB >> 26761020 |
James Dollman1, Melissa Hull2, Nicole Lewis3, Suzanne Carroll4, Dorota Zarnowiecki5.
Abstract
Rural Australians are less physically active than their metropolitan counterparts, and yet very little is known of the candidate intervention targets for promoting physical activity in rural populations. As rural regions are economically, socially and environmentally diverse, drivers of regular physical activity are likely to vary between regions. This study explored the region-specific correlates of daily walking among middle age and older adults in rural regions with contrasting dominant primary industries. Participants were recruited through print and electronic media, primary care settings and community organisations. Pedometers were worn by 153 adults for at least four days, including a weekend day. A questionnaire identified potential intra-personal, social and environmental correlates of physical activity, according to a social ecological framework. Regression modelling identified independent correlates of daily walking separately in the two study regions. In one region, there were independent correlates of walking from all levels of the social ecological framework. In the other region, significant correlates of daily walking were almost all demographic (age, education and marital status). Participants living alone were less likely to be physically active regardless of region. This study highlights the importance of considering region-specific factors when designing strategies for promoting regular walking among rural adults.Entities:
Keywords: correlates; physical activity; rural communities; walking behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26761020 PMCID: PMC4730507 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13010116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample descriptive characteristics by region.
| Variable | Riverland ( | Yorke Peninsula ( |
|---|---|---|
| Demographics | ||
| Age (years) # | 60.19 (8.80) | 59.48 (9.02) |
| Sex: female | 39 (58.2) | 63 (73.3) |
| Highest education | ||
| Some/completed primary school | 3 (4.5) | 2 (2.3) |
| Some high school | 28 (40.8) | 35 (40.7) |
| Completed high school | 7 (1.5) | 9 (10.5) |
| Trade or diploma | 12 (17.9) | 15 (17.4) |
| University degree or higher | 14 (20.9) | 23 (25.6) |
| Marital status: single | 16 (23.9) | 27 (31.4) |
| Manage on income # | 3.66 (0.91) | 3.85 (0.87) |
| Work status: unemployed/not in labour-force | 20 (29.9) | 35 (40.7) |
| BMI # (kg/m2) | 30.89 (5.85) | 30.59 (4.94) |
| Weight category | ||
| Normal weight (<25 kg/m2) | 7 (10.4) | 8 (9.3) |
| Overweight/obese(≥25 kg/m2) | 6 (89.6) | 78 (90.7) |
| Daily steps # | 8429.13 (3733.21) | 7506.47 (2767.71) |
| Activity category | ||
| Inactive (<5000 steps) | 11 (16.4) | 17 (19.8) |
| Low active (5000–7499) | 22 (32.8) | 32 (37.2) |
| Somewhat active (7500–9999) | 14 (20.9) | 20 (23.3) |
| Active (10,000–12,499) | 10 (14.9) | 14 (16.3) |
| Highly active (>12,500) | 10 (19.9) | 3 (3.5) |
| General health # | 2.90 (0.89) | 2.97 (0.85) |
| Motivation # | 3.83 (0.55) | 3.90 (0.58) |
| Barriers self-efficacy # | 3.26 (1.04) | 3.03 (0.93) |
| Relapse self-efficacy # | 3.20 (1.03) | 3.11 (0.85) |
| Already active # | 2.82 (1.30) | 2.71 (1.10) |
| Bullet-proof # | 1.82 (1.07) | 1.90 (0.92) |
| Need a health scare # | 2.39 (1.18) | 2.30 (1.15) |
| Physical activity important # | 4.29 (0.65) | 4.07 (0.72) * |
| Others active in neighbourhood # | 3.27 (1.02) | 3.27 (1.03) |
| Need for support # | 3.52 (0.76) | 3.56 (0.84) |
| Pleasant community # | 1.60 (0.87) | 1.67 (0.89) |
| Safety # | 2.04 (1.00) | 2.21 (1.10) |
| Walkability # | 3.51 (1.13) | 3.12 (0.87) * |
Notes: * p < 0.05; # presented as mean (SD); BMI, Body mass index.
Full and parsimonious ordinal logistic regression model results: odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for included independent variables in predicting pedometer step categories.
| Correlate | Riverland ( | Yorke Peninsula ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Model | SW Model | Full Model | SW Model | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Age (years) | 0.93 (0.85–1.02) | 0.90 (0.83–0.97) ** | 0.88 (0.82–0.95) *** | 0.89 (0.85–0.94) **** |
| Female | 2.10 (0.66–6.64) | - | 1.12 (0.40–3.15) | - |
| Male (referent) | - | - | - | - |
| 0.71 (0.45–1.12) | - | 0.64 (0.45–0.91) * | 0.71 (0.5347–0.95) * | |
| Single | 0.16 (0.04–0.64) ** | 0.60 (0.42–0.84) ** | 0.17 (0.05–0.52) ** | 0.41 (0.17–0.99) * |
| Married/de facto (referent) | - | - | - | - |
| Income | 1.66 (0.83–3.32) | 1.88 (1.07–3.32) * | 1.08 (0.59–2.00) | - |
| Unemployed/not in labour force | 0.34 (0.07–1.64) | - | 0.42 (0.13–1.30) | - |
| Full- or part-time employed (referent) | - | - | - | - |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 1.00 (0.89–1.13) | - | 0.99 (0.91–1.09) | - |
| General health | 4.00 (1.68–9.50) ** | 2.97 (1.36–6.48) ** | 1.18 (0.66–2.12) | - |
| Motivation | 0.83 (0.25–2.74) | - | 0.47 (0.20–1.11) | - |
| Barriers self-efficacy | 0.98 (0.51–1.88) | - | 0.63 (0.34–1.15) | - |
| Relapse self-efficacy | 0.63 (0.32–1.23) | - | 1.10 (0.59–2.05) | - |
| Already active | 1.41 (0.72–2.72) | 1.93 (1.18–3.15) ** | 1.55 (0.86–2.80) | - |
| “Bullet-proof” | 1.76 (0.78–3.98) | - | 0.96 (0.55–1.69) | - |
| “Need a health scare” | 1.84 (0.95–3.53) | 2.33 (1.39–3.90) ** | 1.36 (0.92–2.02) | - |
| Physical activity important | 1.25 (0.50–3.17) | - | 3.46 (1.49–8.03) ** | - |
| Others active | 0.93 (0.47–1.81) | - | 0.69 (0.38–1.24) | - |
| Need for support | 0.33 (0.14–0.78) * | 0.47 (0.23–0.94) * | 0.78 (0.38–1.61) | - |
| Pleasant community | 5.85 (2.01–16.99) *** | 2.31 (1.20–4.44) ** | 0.53 (0.28–1.00) | 0.62 (0.40–0.97) * |
| Safety | 0.40 (0.21–0.78) ** | 0.47 (0.27–0.82) ** | 0.85 (0.51–1.43) | - |
| Walkability | 2.45 (1.08–5.55) * | - | 1.39 (0.71–2.69) | - |
Notes: BMI, body mass index; * p ≤0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001, **** p ≤ 0.0001, SW = Stepwise.