Tanya M Horacek1, E Dede Yildirim2,3, K Kattelmann4, O Brown5,6, C Byrd-Bredbenner7, S Colby8,9, G Greene10, S Hoerr11, T Kidd12, M M Koenings7,13, J Morrell14, M D Olfert15, B Phillips16, K Shelnutt17, A White18. 1. 1 Department of Public Health, Food Studies and Nutrition, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA. 2. 2 Department of Child and Family Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA. 3. 3 Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. 4. 4 Health and Nutritional Sciences Department, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA. 5. 5 Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, USA. 6. 6 Extension Nutrition and Food Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 7. 7 Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 8. 8 Department of Nutrition Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA. 9. 9 Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. 10. 10 Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA. 11. 11 Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 12. 12 Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. 13. 13 Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 14. 14 Department of Molecular, Cellular & Biomedical Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA. 15. 15 Division of Animal & Nutritional Sciences, School of Agriculture, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. 16. 16 Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL, USA (retired). 17. 17 Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 18. 18 School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the walkability/bikeability of college campuses and students' body mass index (BMI) with student physical activity (PA) attitudes and behaviors as potential mediators. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Thirteen university campuses. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1384 student participants. MEASURES: Walkability/bikeability environmental score (ES): 12-item audit assessed an average of 44 path segments per campus. Students were measured for height and weight and completed online surveys. Physical activity stage of change/behavior intentions were assessed using the transtheoretical model. The Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire assessed outcome expectations, self-regulation, and personal barriers. International Physical Activity Questionnaire assessed walking-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity PA. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: The overall model fit was good with χ2 of 171.388 ( df = 18), P < .001, comparative fit index value of .95, and a root mean square of approximation of .079. After controlling for gender, there was a direct negative association between walkability/bikeability ES and BMI (β = -.085) and positive association between personal barriers and BMI (β = .134). Walkability/bikeability ES was positively associated with walking-intensity PA (β = .010). Self-regulation was positively associated with moderate-intensity PA (β = .213), which, in turn, was negatively associated with BMI (β = -.057). CONCLUSIONS: The ease of walking and biking on a campus was related to college students' walking behavior and their BMI. Students' PA behavioral intentions were associated with moderate PA and lower BMI. These results provide evidence to focus on policies and structural supports for walkable/bikeable environments to supplement and enhance interventions encouraging individual behavior change for PA and weight management.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the walkability/bikeability of college campuses and students' body mass index (BMI) with student physical activity (PA) attitudes and behaviors as potential mediators. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Thirteen university campuses. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1384 student participants. MEASURES: Walkability/bikeability environmental score (ES): 12-item audit assessed an average of 44 path segments per campus. Students were measured for height and weight and completed online surveys. Physical activity stage of change/behavior intentions were assessed using the transtheoretical model. The Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire assessed outcome expectations, self-regulation, and personal barriers. International Physical Activity Questionnaire assessed walking-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity PA. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: The overall model fit was good with χ2 of 171.388 ( df = 18), P < .001, comparative fit index value of .95, and a root mean square of approximation of .079. After controlling for gender, there was a direct negative association between walkability/bikeability ES and BMI (β = -.085) and positive association between personal barriers and BMI (β = .134). Walkability/bikeability ES was positively associated with walking-intensity PA (β = .010). Self-regulation was positively associated with moderate-intensity PA (β = .213), which, in turn, was negatively associated with BMI (β = -.057). CONCLUSIONS: The ease of walking and biking on a campus was related to college students' walking behavior and their BMI. Students' PA behavioral intentions were associated with moderate PA and lower BMI. These results provide evidence to focus on policies and structural supports for walkable/bikeable environments to supplement and enhance interventions encouraging individual behavior change for PA and weight management.
Entities:
Keywords:
built environment; college students; fitness; supportive environment; weight control
Authors: C Corvalán; M L Garmendia; J Jones-Smith; C K Lutter; J J Miranda; L S Pedraza; B M Popkin; M Ramirez-Zea; D Salvo; A D Stein Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Tanya M Horacek; Elif Dede Yildirim; Dean Seidman; Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; Sarah Colby; Adrienne A White; Karla P Shelnutt; Melissa D Olfert; Anne E Mathews; Kristin Riggsbee; Lisa Franzen-Castle; Jesse Stabile Morrell; Kendra Kattelmann Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2019-05-19
Authors: Javier Molina-García; Cristina Menescardi; Isaac Estevan; Vladimir Martínez-Bello; Ana Queralt Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Caitlin P Bailey; Shanti Sharma; Christina D Economos; Erin Hennessy; Caitlin Simon; Daniel P Hatfield Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2020-09-23
Authors: Melissa D Olfert; Rebecca L Hagedorn; Makenzie L Barr; Oluremi A Famodu; Jessica M Rubino; Jade A White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 3.390