| Literature DB >> 29533980 |
Ming-Chun Hsueh1, Chien-Yu Lin2, Pin-Hsuan Huang3, Jong-Hwan Park4, Yung Liao5.
Abstract
This study investigated associations of perceived environmental factors with leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and screen time (ST) among older adults. A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering computer-assisted telephone interviews to 1028 older Taiwanese adults in November 2016. Data on personal factors, perceived environmental factors, LTPA, and ST were included. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to examine associations of environmental perception with LTPA and ST by using logistic regression analyses. The results showed that after adjusting for potential confounders, older adults who perceived their neighborhood with good access to shops (AS) and to public transportation (AT) were more likely to have sufficient LTPA (AS: OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.16-2.32; AT: OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.03) and less likely to have excessive ST (AS: OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50-0.97; AT: OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Different perceived environmental factors were also associated with LTPA and ST, respectively. This study highlights environment perception as a crucial factor for LTPA and ST. These findings suggest that policy makers and physical activity intervention designers should develop both common and individual environmental strategies to improve and increase awareness of the neighborhood environment to promote LTPA and reduce ST among older adults.Entities:
Keywords: perceived environmental factor; recreational physical activity; screen based sedentary behavior; senior citizens
Year: 2018 PMID: 29533980 PMCID: PMC5867582 DOI: 10.3390/jcm7030056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Basic characteristics of all respondents (n = 1028).
| Variable | Category | Study Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| % | |||
| Gender | Male | 523 | 50.9% |
| Female | 505 | 49.1% | |
| Age | 65–74 | 679 | 66.1% |
| ≥75 | 349 | 33.9% | |
| Educational | Tertiary degree | 296 | 28.8% |
| Non-tertiary degree | 732 | 71.2% | |
| Occupational type | Full-time job | 105 | 10.2% |
| Non-full-time job | 923 | 89.8% | |
| Marital status | Married | 792 | 77.0% |
| Unmarried | 236 | 23.0% | |
| Living status | With others | 887 | 86.3% |
| Alone | 141 | 13.7% | |
| Residential area | Metropolitan | 507 | 49.3% |
| Non-metropolitan | 521 | 50.7% | |
| Self-rated health status | Good | 833 | 81.0% |
| Poor | 195 | 19.0% | |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | Non-overweight | 600 | 58.4% |
| Overweight/obese | 428 | 41.6% | |
| LTPA | Insufficient (<150 min/week) | 346 | 33.7% |
| Sufficient (≥150 min/week) | 682 | 66.3% | |
| ST | Low (<2 h/day) | 409 | 39.8% |
| Excessive (≥2 h/day) | 619 | 60.2% | |
Abbreviations: LTPA = leisure-time physical activity; ST = screen-time.
Perceived Environmental Factors Associated with LTPA and ST.
| Variable | Category | Total Sample | Sufficient LTPA | Excessive ST | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | |||
| Residential density a | High | 937 | 90.8% | 0.88 (0.53–1.42) | 0.67 (0.44–1.04) |
| Low | 95 | 9.2% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Access to shops | Good | 838 | 81.2% | 1.64 (1.16–2.32) * | 0.70 (0.50–0.97) * |
| Poor | 194 | 18.8% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Access to public transportation | Good | 836 | 81.0% | 1.43 (1.00–2.03) * | 0.64 (0.46–0.90) * |
| Poor | 196 | 19.0% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Presence of sidewalks | Yes | 618 | 59.9% | 1.30 (0.98–1.73) | 0.99 (0.76–1.30) |
| No | 414 | 40.1% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Access to recreational facilities | Yes | 794 | 76.9% | 1.73 (1.26–2.37) ** | 0.77 (0.57–1.04) |
| No | 238 | 23.1% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Crime safety at night | Not safe | 174 | 16.9% | 1.17 (0.82–1.67) | 0.87 (0.62–1.21) |
| Safe | 858 | 83.1% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Traffic safety | Not safe | 345 | 33.4% | 0.89 (0.66–1.18) | 0.99 (0.75–1.29) |
| Safe | 687 | 66.6% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Seeing people being active | Yes | 677 | 65.6% | 1.47 (1.10–1.93) * | 0.82 (0.63–1.07) |
| No | 355 | 34.4% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Aesthetics | Yes | 562 | 54.5% | 1.33 (1.01–1.75) * | 0.79 (0.61–1.02) |
| No | 470 | 45.5% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Connectivity of streets | Good | 671 | 65% | 1.29 (0.97–1.71) | 0.60 (0.46–0.78) ** |
| Poor | 361 | 35% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
| Presence of destination | Yes | 726 | 70.3% | 1.92 (1.42–2.59) ** | 0.81 (0.61–1.07) |
| No | 306 | 29.7% | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
a residential density definition: single-family housing as “low residential density”; townhouses, row houses, apartments or condos of 2–3 stories; a mix of single-family residences and townhouses, row houses, apartments or condos; apartments or condos of 4–12 stories; and apartments or condos of more than 12 stories as “high residential density,”. Adjusted for gender, age, occupational type, educational level, marital status, living status, residential area, self-rated health status, and Body Mass Index (BMI); * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001. LTPA = leisure-time physical activity; ST = screen-time.