| Literature DB >> 29425161 |
Hamdi Lemamsha1, Chris Papadopoulos2, Gurch Randhawa3.
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of research pertaining to the links between built environment attributes and obesity in adults in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. In the Libyan context, no previous studies have been conducted to investigate this relationship. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine associations between perceived neighbourhood built environmental attributes and obesity among Libyan men and women. The prevalence of overweight and obesity was also assessed.Entities:
Keywords: Libya; neighbourhood environment; obesity
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29425161 PMCID: PMC5858370 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sampling technique.
| S.N. | The Randomly Selected Constituencies | The Randomly Selected Polling District | Number of Registered Voters in Each Polling District | % of the Calculated Sample Size in Each Polling District | Total Hypothesised Sample Size = 512 | Total Actual Sample Size = 401 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Al-Keisha | Al-Fuwayhat | 8012 | 13.8% | 71 | 51 |
| 2. | Al-Sabre | Al-Kwayfiya | 10,433 | 18% | 92 | 75 |
| 3. | Al-Salmani-ElSharki | Raas Abayda | 8480 | 14.7% | 75 | 54 |
| 4. | Bu Atni | Laithi | 11,858 | 20.5% | 105 | 86 |
| 5. | Madinat Benghazi | Al-Hadaa’iq | 19,102 | 33% | 169 | 135 |
| Total | 57,885 | 100% | 512 | 401 | ||
Socio-demographic characteristics and anthropometric measurement vary by gender.
| Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics | Male (M) N (%) | Female (F) N (%) | Total N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 148 (37) | 253 (63) | 401 (100) |
| Age | |||
| 20–29 | 27 (18) | 51 (20) | 78 (19) |
| 30–39 | 27 (18) | 56 (22) | 83 (21) |
| 40–49 | 37 (25) | 78 (31) | 115 (29) |
| 50–59 | 18 (12) | 32 (13) | 50 (12) |
| 60–65 | 39 (26) | 36 (14) | 75 (19) |
| Marital Status | |||
| Single (Unmarried) | 47 (31.8) | 85 (33.6) | 132 (32.9) |
| Married 1 | 101 (68.2) | 168 (66.4) | 269 (67.1) |
| Racial group | |||
| Arabic | 129 (87.2) | 210 (83) | 339 (84.6) |
| Berbers ‘Imazighen’ | 15 (10.1) | 28 (11.1) | 43 (10.7) |
| Toubou | 4 (2.7) | 15 (5.9) | 19 (4.7) |
| Level of education | |||
| Low educational level * | 32 (21.6) | 45 (17.8) | 77 (19.2) |
| Moderate educational level ** | 41 (27.7) | 77 (30.4) | 118 (29.4) |
| High educational level *** | 75 (50.7) | 131 (51.8) | 206 (51.4) |
| Occupation | |||
| Employed groups 2 | 120 (81.1) | 191 (75.5) | 311 (77.6) |
| Unemployed groups 3 | 28 (18.9) | 62 (24.5) | 90 (22.4) |
| Monthly Income: “(LYD)” * | |||
| Low income <999 | 46 (31) | 57 (23) | 103 (26) |
| 1000–1999 | 8 (5) | 17 (7) | 25 (6) |
| Moderate income 2000–2999 | 16 (11) | 54 (21) | 70 (18) |
| High income: 3000–3999 | 35 (24) | 60 (24) | 95 (24) |
| 4000–4999 | 25 (17) | 53 (21) | 78 (19) |
| ≥5000 | 18 (12) | 12 (5) | 30 (7) |
| Anthropometric measurements | Male Mean (±SD) | Female Mean (±SD) | Participants Mean (±SD) |
| BMI values (kg/m2) | 28.50 (±5.40) | 30.12 (±6.54) | 29.52 (±6.19) |
| Visceral Fat Rating (1–12) | 10.04 (±3.9) | 10.65 (±4.2) | 10.42 (±4.1) |
| Body fat % | 27.01 (±7.31) | 34.24 (±9.51) | 31.57 (±9.42) |
Married 1: “Being married, divorced separated & widowed.” Low educational level *: “No formal schooling; Less than a primary school; Primary school completed.” Moderate educational level **: “Secondary school completed; High school completed.” High educational level ***: “College/university completed; Post graduate degree.” Employed groups 2: “Government employee; non-government employee; Self-employed; non-paid & student.” Unemployed groups 3: “Housework; retired; unemployed (able to work); and unemployed (unable to work). (Libyan Dinar (LYD) * = 1/2 Pound under current exchange rate).
Association between neighbourhood environment factors and BMI using binary logistic regression when sociodemographic and SES factors were adjusted *.
| Neighbourhood Environment Variables | The Response Options | Responses of Non-Obese Participants BMI < 25.00 N (%) | Responses of Obese Participants BMI ≥ 25.00 N (%) | Total Participants N (%) | Sig. | Exp (B) | 95% CI for Exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| 1. Residential density. | Low | 46 (47) | 47 (15.5) | 93 (23.2) | 0.006 | 3.33 | 1.41 | 7.87 |
| High | 52 (53) | 256 (84.5) | 308 (76.8) | |||||
| 2. Access to commercial places. | Agree | 20 (20.4) | 102 (33.7) | 122 (30.4) | 0.269 | 0.55 | 0.19 | 1.60 |
| Disagree | 78 (79.6) | 201 (66.3) | 279 (69.6) | |||||
| 3. Access to public transport. | Agree | 17 (17.3) | 112 (37) | 129 (32.2) | 0.040 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.96 |
| Disagree | 81 (82.7) | 191 (63) | 272 (67.8) | |||||
| 4. Presence of pavements. | Agree | 35 (35.7) | 86 (28.4) | 121 (30.2) | 0.599 | 1.37 | 0.42 | 4.45 |
| Disagree | 63 (64.3) | 217 (71.6) | 280 (69.8) | |||||
| 5. Presence of cycle lanes. | Agree | 40 (40.8) | 198 (65.3) | 238 (59.4) | 0.118 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 1.26 |
| Disagree | 58 (59.2) | 105 (34.7) | 163 (40.6) | |||||
| 6. Access to recreational facilities. | Agree | 20 (20.4) | 92 (30.4) | 112 (27.9) | 0.453 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 1.81 |
| Disagree | 78 (79.6) | 211 (69.6) | 289 (72.1) | |||||
| 7. Crime/safety at night. | Agree | 50 (51) | 48 (15.8) | 98 (24.4) | 0.004 | 3.90 | 1.56 | 9.78 |
| Disagree | 48 (49) | 255 (84.2) | 303 (75.6) | |||||
| 8. Traffic safety. | Agree | 52 (53) | 96 (31.7) | 148 (36.9) | 0.211 | 1.71 | 0.74 | 3.93 |
| Disagree | 46 (47) | 207 (68.3) | 253 (63.1) | |||||
| 9. See people as being active. | Agree | 40 (40.8) | 92 (30.4) | 132 (32.9) | 0.894 | 0.95 | 0.42 | 2.15 |
| Disagree | 58 (59.2) | 211 (69.6) | 269 (67.1) | |||||
| 10. Presence of beautiful things ‘Aesthetics’. | Agree | 8 (7) | 123 (41) | 131 (32.7) | 0.000 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.28 |
| Disagree | 91 (93) | 179 (59) | 270 (67.3) | |||||
| 11. Household vehicle ownership. | Agree | 40 (40.8) | 78 (25.7) | 118 (29.4) | 0.869 | 0.93 | 0.40 | 2.19 |
| Disagree | 58 (59.2) | 225 (74.3) | 283 (70.6) | |||||
| 12. Connectivity of streets. | Agree | 55 (56) | 82 (27) | 137 (34.2) | 0.000 | 5.13 | 2.25 | 11.70 |
| Disagree | 43 (44) | 221 (73) | 264 (65.8) | |||||
| 13. Maintenance of pavements. | Agree | 31 (31.6) | 88 (29) | 119 (29.7) | 0.576 | 1.43 | 0.41 | 4.98 |
| Disagree | 67 (68.4) | 215 (71) | 282 (70.3) | |||||
| 14. Maintenance of cycle lanes. | Agree | 36 (36.7) | 169 (55.7) | 205 (51.1) | 0.742 | 0.82 | 0.25 | 2.66 |
| Disagree | 62 (63.3) | 134 (44.3) | 196 (48.9) | |||||
| 15. Traffic safety for cyclists. | Agree | 51 (52) | 87 (28.7) | 138 (34.4) | 0.658 | 0.82 | 0.34 | 1.98 |
| Disagree | 47 (48) | 216 (71.3) | 263 (65.6) | |||||
| 16. Crime/safety during the day. | Agree | 55 (56.1) | 59 (19.5) | 114 (28.4) | 0.004 | 3.88 | 1.52 | 9.89 |
| Disagree | 43 (43.9) | 244 (80.5) | 287 (71.6) | |||||
| 17. Public places and walkable destinations. | Agree | 23 (23.5) | 119 (39.3) | 142 (35.4) | 0.856 | 0.91 | 0.32 | 2.61 |
| Disagree | 75 (76.5) | 184 (60.7) | 259 (64.6) | |||||
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. The OR was calculated for all variables with 95% confidence intervals. * Adjusted for, gender, age, marital status, level of education, occupation and income.
Association between neighbourhood environment factors and BMI using binary logistic regression across gender-related variances when sociodemographic and SES factors were adjusted *.
| Neighbourhood Environment Variables | Male | Female | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sig. | Odds Ratio (OR) | 95% CI for Exp (B) | Sig. | Odds Ratio (OR) | 95% CI for Exp (B) | |||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||||
| 1. Residential density. | 0.092 | 9.13 | 0.70 | 120.02 | 0.011 | 4.77 | 1.44 | 15.82 |
| 2. Access to commercial places. | 0.295 | 5.62 | 0.22 | 141.87 | 0.110 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 1.34 |
| 3. Access to public transport. | 0.022 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.56 | 0.317 | 0.54 | 0.16 | 1.80 |
| 4. Presence of pavements. | 0.118 | 43.76 | 0.38 | 4997.11 | 0.869 | 0.86 | 0.15 | 5.01 |
| 5. Presence of cycle lanes. | 0.139 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 2.82 | 0.445 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 2.62 |
| 6. Access to recreational facilities. | 0.044 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.913 | 0.935 | 0.95 | 0.25 | 3.66 |
| 7. Crime/safety at night. | 0.030 | 27.76 | 1.37 | 562.20 | 0.009 | 5.90 | 1.54 | 22.51 |
| 8. Traffic safety. | 0.948 | 0.93 | 0.09 | 9.33 | 0.494 | 1.57 | 0.43 | 5.77 |
| 9. See people as being active. | 0.521 | 2.28 | 0.184 | 28.29 | 0.151 | 0.40 | 0.11 | 1.40 |
| 10. Presence of beautiful things ‘Aesthetics’. | 0.007 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.12 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.24 |
| 11. Household vehicle ownership. | 0.538 | 0.47 | 0.042 | 5.21 | 0.580 | 0.72 | 0.22 | 2.34 |
| 12. Connectivity of streets. | 0.008 | 44.29 | 2.69 | 729.63 | 0.004 | 5.75 | 1.73 | 19.08 |
| 13. Maintenance of pavements. | 0.383 | 5.249 | 0.127 | 216.23 | 0.677 | 0.68 | 0.12 | 4.24 |
| 14. Maintenance of cycle lanes. | 0.304 | 0.13 | 0.003 | 6.48 | 0.455 | 0.54 | 0.10 | 2.75 |
| 15. Traffic safety for cyclists. | 0.056 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 1.10 | 0.585 | 1.43 | 0.40 | 5.20 |
| 16. Crime/safety during the day. | 0.012 | 204.94 | 3.15 | 13,336.90 | 0.095 | 2.97 | 0.83 | 10.64 |
| 17. Public places and walkable destinations. | 0.985 | 0.97 | 0.048 | 19.86 | 0.513 | 0.61 | 0.14 | 2.72 |
OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. The OR was calculated for all variables with 95% confidence intervals. * Adjusted for, gender, age, duration of residence in Benghazi, marital status, level of education, occupation and income.