| Literature DB >> 27420086 |
Ming-Chun Hsueh1, Yung Liao2, Shao-Hsi Chang3.
Abstract
This study examined the associations between perceived neighborhood and home environmental factors and excessive television (TV) viewing time among Taiwanese older adults. The sample data was collected by administering computer-assisted telephone interviewers to 980 Taiwanese older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) living in two regions. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to examine the associations between self-reported perceived neighborhood and home environmental attributions and TV viewing time by using logistic regression analyses. The results showed that perceived neighborhood and home environmental factors were associated with excessive TV viewing time (≥2 h/day) after adjusting for potential confounders. Compared with a reference group, older adults who perceived their neighborhoods to have unsafe traffic were more likely to report excessive TV viewing time (OR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.02-1.82). Older adults who reported having two or more TV sets in the home (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.28-2.44) and having a TV in the bedroom (OR = 1.55, CI = 1.18-2.03) were also more likely to report excessive TV viewing time. Further longitudinal research can confirm these findings, and tailored interventions focusing on the perceptions of neighborhood traffic safety and TV access at home for older adults might be effective means of preventing excessive TV viewing time.Entities:
Keywords: Asia; built environment; elderly; household; sedentary behavior; sedentary equipment; traffic safety
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27420086 PMCID: PMC4962249 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13070708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Items of international physical activity questionnaire environmental module.
| Scale Composition | Items |
|---|---|
| Access to shops | Many shops, stores, markets or other places to buy things I need are within easy walking distance of my home. |
| Access to public transport | It is within a 10–15 min walk to a transit stop from my home. |
| Presence of sidewalks | There are sidewalks on most of the streets in my neighborhood. |
| Presence of bike lanes | There are facilities to bicycle in or near my neighborhood. |
| Access to recreational facilities | My neighborhood has several free or low cost recreation facilities. |
| Crime safety at night | The crime rate in my neighborhood makes it unsafe to go on walks at night. |
| Traffic safety | There is so much traffic on the streets that it makes it difficult or unpleasant to walk in my neighborhood. |
| Social environment | I see many people being physically active in my neighborhood. |
| Aesthetics | There are many interesting things to look at while walking in my neighborhood. |
| Residential density | What is the main type of housing in your neighborhood? |
Characteristics of participants.
| Variable | Category | Total Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 65–74 | 616 | (62.9) |
| ≥75 | 364 | (37.1) | |
| Gender | Women | 469 | (47.9) |
| Men | 511 | (52.1) | |
| Education level | College degree or more | 228 | (23.3) |
| Up to high school | 752 | (76.7) | |
| Marital status | Married | 746 | (76.1) |
| Unmarried | 234 | (23.9) | |
| Living status | With family | 851 | (86.9) |
| Alone | 129 | (13.1) | |
| Job status | Employment | 192 | (19.6) |
| Non-employed | 788 | (80.4) | |
| Residential area | Metropolitan | 504 | (51.4) |
| Non-metropolitan | 476 | (48.6) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) a | Non-overweight (<24) | 574 | (58.6) |
| Overweight (≥24) | 406 | (41.4) | |
| LTPA (min/week) b | Sufficient (≥150) | 581 | (59.3) |
| Insufficient (<150) | 399 | (40.7) | |
| Household motor vehicles | None | 184 | (18.8) |
| One or more | 796 | (81.2) | |
| TV viewing (h/day) | <2 | 417 | (42.6) |
| ≥2 | 563 | (57.4) | |
Notes: a BMI = body mass index; b LTPA = leisure time physical activity.
Descriptive Statistics of Perceived Neighborhood and Home Environmental Variables.
| Variable | Category | Total Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential density | Low | 61 | (6.2) |
| High | 919 | (93.8) | |
| Access to shops | Good | 818 | (83.5) |
| Poor | 162 | (16.5) | |
| Access to public transport | Good | 794 | (81.0) |
| Poor | 186 | (19.0) | |
| Presence of sidewalks | Yes | 608 | (62.0) |
| No | 372 | (38.0) | |
| Presence of bike lanes | Yes | 572 | (58.4) |
| No | 408 | (41.6) | |
| Access to recreational facilities | Good | 800 | (81.6) |
| Poor | 180 | (18.4) | |
| Crime safety | Safe | 149 | (15.2) |
| Not safe | 831 | (84.8) | |
| Traffic safety | Safe | 270 | (27.6) |
| Not safe | 710 | (72.4) | |
| Social environment | Good | 750 | (76.5) |
| Poor | 230 | (23.5) | |
| Aesthetics | Good | 607 | (61.9) |
| Poor | 373 | (38.1) | |
| Numbers of TV sets in home | 0–1 | 750 | (76.5) |
| 2 or more | 230 | (23.5) | |
| TV set in bedroom | No | 593 | (60.5) |
| Yes | 387 | (39.5) | |
Odds ratios for perceived neighborhood and home environmental variables and likelihood of excessive TV viewing time.
| Variables | TV Viewing ≥2 h/day | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | ||
| Low | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| High | 0.68 | 0.39–1.19 | 0.18 |
| Good | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Poor | 0.75 | 0.52–1.09 | 0.13 |
| Good | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Poor | 0.79 | 0.55–1.14 | 0.21 |
| Yes | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| No | 0.88 | 0.65-1.17 | 0.37 |
| Yes | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| No | 0.86 | 0.66–1.12 | 0.26 |
| Good | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Poor | 0.85 | 0.60–1.20 | 0.36 |
| Safe | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Not safe | 0.97 | 0.68–1.40 | 0.87 |
| Safe | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Not safe | 1.36 | 1.02–1.82 | 0.04 * |
| Good | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Poor | 1.06 | 0.77–1.45 | 0.72 |
| Good | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Poor | 1.26 | 0.96-1.66 | 0.08 |
| 0–1 | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| 2 or more | 1.77 | 1.28–2.44 | <0.001 * |
| No | 1.00 (ref.) | ||
| Yes | 1.55 | 1.18–2.03 | 0.001 * |
Adjusted for gender, age, marital status, job status, educational level, residential area, living status, LTPA, BMI status, household motor vehicles; OR, odds ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; * p < 0.05.