| Literature DB >> 31141942 |
Adewale L Oyeyemi1, Sanda M Kolo2, Adamu A Rufai3, Adetoyeje Y Oyeyemi4, Babatunji A Omotara5, James F Sallis6,7.
Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the potential role of neighborhood walkability in reducing sedentary behavior. However, the majority of this research has been conducted in adults and Western developed countries. The purpose of the present study was to examine associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with sedentary time among older adults in Nigeria. Data from 353 randomly-selected community-dwelling older adults (60 years and above) in Maiduguri, Nigeria were analyzed. Perceived attributes of neighborhood environments and self-reported sedentary time were assessed using Nigerian-validated and reliable measures. Outcomes were weekly minutes of total sedentary time, minutes of sitting on a typical weekday, and minutes of sitting on a typical weekend day. In multivariate regression analyses, higher walkability index, proximity to destinations, access to services, traffic safety, and safety from crime were associated with less total sedentary time and sedentary time on both a weekday and a weekend day. Moderation analysis showed that only in men was higher walking infrastructure and safety found to be associated with less sedentary time, and higher street connectivity was associated with more sedentary time. The findings suggest that improving neighborhood walkability may be a mechanism for reducing sedentary time among older adults in Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; built environment; elderly; non-communicable diseases; sitting; walkable neighborhood
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31141942 PMCID: PMC6603618 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and descriptive information of neighborhood environmental attributes and sedentary time (n = 353).
| Variables | Total Sample | Men | Women | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| socio-demographics | ||||
| Age (years) | 68.9 ± 9.1 | 69.0 ± 9.4 | 68.8 ± 8.6 | NS |
| Marital status ( | ||||
| Married | 252 (71.4) | 169 (79.7) | 83 (58.9) | <0.01 |
| Not married | 101 (28.6) | 43 (20.3) | 58 (41.1) | |
| Education ( | ||||
| > Secondary school | 88 (24.9) | 64 (30.2) | 24 (17.0) | <0.05 |
| Secondary school | 45 (12.7) | 26 (12.3) | 19 (13.5) | |
| Primary school | 38 (10.8) | 23 (10.8) | 15 (10.6) | |
| Never attended school | 182(51.6) | 99 (46.7) | 83 (58.9) | |
| Employment ( | <0.01 | |||
| Formal (office work) | 47 (13.3) | 36 (17.0) | 11 (7.8) | |
| Self-employed | 109 (30.9) | 81 (38.2) | 28 (19.9) | |
| Unemployed | 197 (55.8) | 95 (44.8) | 102 (72.4) | |
| Neighborhood type ( | NS | |||
| Low-SES/high walkable | 181 (51.3) | 115 (54.2) | 66 (46.8) | |
| High-SES/low walkable | 172 (48.7) | 97 (45.8) | 75 (53.2) | |
| Environmental attributes a | ||||
| Overall walkability index | −0.01 ± 3.21 | 0.03 ± 3.25 | -0.08 ± 3.15 | NS |
| Residential density | 235.66 ± 84.79 | 232.37 ± 80.87 | 240.59 ± 90.43 | NS |
| Proximity to destinations | 3.02 ± 0.47 | 2.99±0.46 | 3.08 ± 0.48 | NS |
| Access to services and places | 1.19 ± 0.47 | 1.16±0.41 | 1.23 ± 0.54 | NS |
| Street connectivity | 2.94 ± 0.52 | 2.97±0.50 | 2.88 ± 0.55 | NS |
| Walking infrastructure and safety | 3.03 ± 0.43 | 3.04±0.40 | 3.01 ± 0.43 | NS |
| Aesthetics | 2.51 ± 0.59 | 2.55 ± 0.56 | 2.46 ± 0.62 | NS |
| Traffic safety | 2.32 ± 0.53 | 2.34 ± 0.52 | 2.29 ± 0.55 | NS |
| Safety from crime | 2.85 ± 1.02 | 2.89 ± 1.05 | 2.79 ± 0.99 | NS |
| Sedentary time outcomes b | ||||
| Weekday (min/day) | 300 (180–360) | 300 (240–360) | 240 (180–360) | 0.05 |
| Weekend (min/day) | 240 (180–360) | 240 (180–360) | 240 (180–360) | NS |
| Total weekly (min/week) | 1860 (1380–2520) | 1980 (1560–540) | 1680 (1260–2520) | NS |
* = Based on independent t-tests statistics for continuous variables and chi-square statistics for categorical variables; a = values for age and environmental attributes are mean ± standard deviation; b = values for sedentary time outcomes are median and inter quartile range (25th and 75th percentile values); SES = socioeconomic status; NS = not significant.
Associations between perceived neighborhood environmental attributes and total sedentary time (min/week).
| Environmental Attributes | B | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main effects | |||
| Residential density | −1.791 | −3.730, 0.147 | 0.070 |
| Proximity to destinations | −695.745 | −980.781, −410.705 | <0.001 ** |
| Access to services and places | −480.703 | −802.161, −159.245 | 0.004 * |
| Street connectivity | −45.740 | −299.299, 207.819 | 0.722 |
| Walking infrastructure and safety | −223.886 | −513.865, 66.092 | 0.129 |
| Aesthetics | −78.829 | −333.024, 175.366 | 0.541 |
| Traffic safety | −597.377 | −865.533, −329.221 | <0.001 ** |
| Safety from crime | −303.065 | −489.786, −116.344 | 0.002 * |
| Overall walkability index | −70.575 | −109.204, −31.947 | <0.001 ** |
| Interaction effects of sex | |||
| Residential density | |||
| Women-specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
| Proximity to destinations | 62.841 | −11.493, 137.175 | 0.097 |
| Women-specific | −578.101 | −1042.425, 113.777 | 0.015 * |
| Men-specific | −644.242 | −1008.793, −279.692 | 0.001 * |
| Access to services and places | |||
| Women-specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
| Street connectivity | 100.352 | 18.272, 182.433 | 0.017 * |
| Women-specific | −51.756 | −369.023, 265.511 | 0.746 |
| Men-specific | 305.128 | 14.622, 595.634 | 0.040 * |
| Walking infrastructure and safety | |||
| Women-specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
| Aesthetics | |||
| Women-specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
| Traffic safety | 118.674 | 22.975, 214,374 | 0.015 * |
| Women-specific | −376.580 | −678.416, −74.744 | 0.015 * |
| Men-Specific | −521.107 | −832.816, −209.398 | 0.001 * |
| Safety from crime | |||
| Women-Specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
| Overall walkability index | |||
| Women-Specific | - | - | - |
| Men-specific | - | - | - |
B = regression coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals; - = not applicable because no significant moderating effect of sex was found. For environmental attributes with significant sex moderating effects, sex-specific associations (men- and women-specific) are reported. All regression coefficients are adjusted for participants’ age, sex, marital status, education, employment, neighborhood types, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. ** = p-value significant at <0.001; * = p-value significant at <0.05.