| Literature DB >> 28032060 |
Hyunshik Kim1, Younglae Choi2, Jiameng Ma1, Kuam Hyung3, Masashi Miyashita4, Sunkyoung Lee5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyze the reliability of the Korean version of the NEWS and to investigate the relationship between walking and environmental factors by gender.Entities:
Keywords: Environment; Korean NEWS-A; Physical activity; Reliability
Year: 2016 PMID: 28032060 PMCID: PMC5182251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Public Health ISSN: 2251-6085 Impact factor: 1.429
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants
| Age (yr) | ||||||
| 20–29 | 67 | 23.8 | 34 | 20.5 | 33 | 28.7 |
| 30–39 | 83 | 29.5 | 48 | 28.9 | 35 | 30.4 |
| 40–49 | 62 | 22.1 | 41 | 24.7 | 21 | 18.3 |
| 50–59 | 69 | 24.6 | 43 | 25.9 | 26 | 22.6 |
| Mean±SD | 38.3±11.9 | 39.5±11.7 | 36.6±12.2 | |||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married | 116 | 41.6 | 59 | 35.8 | 57 | 50.0 |
| Not married | 163 | 58.4 | 106 | 64.2 | 57 | 50.0 |
| Employment status | ||||||
| Full time | 151 | 54.3 | 85 | 52.1 | 66 | 57.4 |
| Part time | 108 | 38.8 | 65 | 39.9 | 43 | 37.4 |
| Not employed | 19 | 6.8 | 13 | 8.0 | 6 | 5.2 |
| Educational status (years) | ||||||
| <high school graduate (−12) | 126 | 45.0 | 69 | 41.6 | 57 | 50.0 |
| ≥college or university (13−) | 154 | 55.0 | 97 | 58.4 | 57 | 50.0 |
| Annual household income (KRW) | ||||||
| <1,000,000 | 81 | 28.8 | 46 | 27.7 | 35 | 30.4 |
| 1,000,000–1,999,999 | 74 | 26.3 | 51 | 30.7 | 23 | 20.0 |
| 2,000,000–2,999,999 | 60 | 21.4 | 35 | 21.1 | 25 | 21.7 |
| >3,000,000 | 66 | 25.5 | 34 | 20.5 | 32 | 27.8 |
| Children in household | ||||||
| Yes | 153 | 55.2 | 98 | 59.0 | 55 | 49.5 |
| No | 124 | 44.8 | 68 | 41.0 | 56 | 50.5 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | ||||||
| −24.9 | 177 | 64.8 | 135 | 83.9 | 42 | 37.5 |
| 25–29.9 | 51 | 18.1 | 14 | 8.7 | 37 | 33.0 |
| 30.0− | 45 | 16.5 | 12 | 7.5 | 33 | 29.5 |
Intraclass correlation coefficients of characteristics of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated South Korea Version
| Residential density (range 173–865) | 0.82 (0.80 – 0.83) | <0.001 | 0.83 (0.81 – 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.79 (0.76 – 0.81) | <0.001 |
| Land use mix-diversity (range 1–5) | 0.88 (0.87 – 0.86) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.86 – 0.88) | <0.001 | 0.88 (0.87 – 0.89) | <0.001 |
| Land use mix-access (range 1–4) | 0.81 (0.78 – 0.83) | <0.001 | 0.77 (0.73 – 0.80) | <0.001 | 0.85 (0.82 – 0.88) | <0.001 |
| Street connectivity (range 1–4) | 0.75 (0.71 – 0.78) | <0.001 | 0.75 (0.69 – 0.79) | <0.001 | 0.74 (0.68 – 0.79) | <0.001 |
| Infrastructure and safety for walking (range 1–4) | 0.83 (0.81 – 0.84) | <0.001 | 0.83 (0.81 – 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.82 (0.79 – 0.84) | <0.001 |
| Aesthetics (range 1–4) | 0.85 (0.83 – 0.86) | <0.001 | 0.85 (0.83 – 0.87) | <0.001 | 0.83 (0.81 – 0.86) | <0.001 |
| Traffic hazards (range 1–4) | 0.77 (0.74 – 0.80) | <0.001 | 0.77 (0.74 – 0.80) | <0.001 | 0.77 (0.72 – 0.81) | <0.001 |
| Crime (range 1–4) | 0.83 (0.80 – 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.81 (0.78 – 0.84) | <0.001 | 0.85 (0.82 – 0.88) | <0.001 |
| Lack of parking (single item : range 1–4) | 0.79 (0.74 – 0.83) | <0.001 | 0.77 (0.70 – 0.83) | <0.001 | 0.83 (0.76 – 0.88) | <0.001 |
| Lack of cul-de-sacs (single item : range 1–4) | 0.78 (0.73 – 0.82) | <0.001 | 0.68 (0.59 – 0.75) | <0.001 | 0.89 (0.86 – 0.93) | <0.001 |
| Hilliness (single item : range 1–4) | 0.86 (0.83 – 0.89) | <0.001 | 0.84 (0.79 – 0.88) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.82 – 0.91) | <0.001 |
| Physical barriers (single item : range 1–4) | 0.71 (0.65 – 0.76) | <0.001 | 0.68 (0.59 – 0.75) | <0.001 | 0.73 (0.63 – 0.81) | <0.001 |
ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient, 95% CI : confidence interval
Scores of characteristics of Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated (NEWS-A) by sex
| Residential density (range 173–865) | 575±141 | 578±146 | 569±133 | 0.204 | 0.616 |
| Land use mix-diversity (range 1–5) | 3.69±0.70 | 3.80±0.61 | 3.52±0.77 | 7.463 | 0.001 |
| Land use mix-access (range 1–4) | 3.22±0.61 | 3.23±0.63 | 3.20±0.58 | 1.137 | 0.639 |
| Street connectivity (range 1–4) | 2.69±0.55 | 2.71±0.57 | 2.68±0.52 | 1.251 | 0.674 |
| Infrastructure and safety for walking (range 1–4) | 2.77±0.48 | 2.77±0.53 | 2.76±0.39 | 5.634 | 0.933 |
| Aesthetics (range 1–4) | 2.55±0.60 | 2.60±0.61 | 2.49±0.58 | 0.328 | 0.124 |
| Traffic hazards (range 1–4) | 2.38±0.42 | 2.32±0.44 | 2.47±0.37 | 0.391 | 0.005 |
| Crime (range 1–4) | 1.95±0.55 | 1.90±0.54 | 2.02±0.56 | 0.118 | 0.081 |
| Lack of parking (single item : range 1–4) | 2.58±0.80 | 2.54±0.82 | 2.64±0.77 | 0.974 | 0.299 |
| Lack of cul-de-sacs (single item : range 1–4) | 2.56±0.70 | 2.60±0.67 | 2.52±0.74 | 2.300 | 0.373 |
| Hilliness (single item : range 1–4) | 2.05±0.66 | 1.95±0.61 | 2.20±0.70 | 9.447 | 0.002 |
| Physical barriers (single item : range 1–4) | 1.77±0.62 | 1.68±0.59 | 1.91±0.64 | 3.254 | 0.002 |
Values are expressed as means ± SD except for percentage.
Partial correlation coefficients between Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated (NEWS-A) and walking
| Residential density | 0.039 | 0.523 | 0.020 | 0.804 | 0.068 | 0.488 |
| Land use mix-diversity | −0.020 | 0.746 | 0.115 | 0.147 | 0.116 | 0.234 |
| Land use mix-access | 0.130 | 0.034 | 0.071 | 0.372 | 0.203 | 0.036 |
| Street connectivity | 0.150 | 0.014 | 0.179 | 0.024 | 0.105 | 0.280 |
| Infrastructure and safety for walking | 0.054 | 0.377 | −0.036 | 0.651 | 0.216 | 0.026 |
| Aesthetics | 0.070 | 0.253 | −0.056 | 0.484 | 0.261 | 0.007 |
| Traffic hazards | −0.059 | 0.333 | −0.012 | 0.883 | −0.190 | 0.050 |
| Crime | −0.057 | 0.352 | −0.014 | 0.856 | −0.129 | 0.186 |
| Lack of parking | 0.063 | 0.301 | 0.074 | 0.356 | 0.038 | 0.699 |
| Lack of cul-de-sacs | −0.012 | 0.844 | −0.095 | 0.233 | 0.090 | 0.354 |
| Hilliness | 0.039 | 0.528 | 0.162 | 0.042 | −0.142 | 0.146 |
| Physical barriers | 0.032 | 0.607 | 0.057 | 0.477 | −0.020 | 0.840 |
Adjusted for marital status, employment status, education status level, income level.
Significant correlation coefficients (P< 0.05)