| Literature DB >> 31888573 |
Nicolas Berger1, Daniel Lewis2,3, Matteo Quartagno4,5, Edmund Njeru Njagi6, Steven Cummins2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most UK adolescents do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. Previous studies suggested that perceptions of the neighbourhood environment could contribute to explain differences in physical activity behaviours. We aimed to examine whether five measures of perceptions - perceived bus stop proximity, traffic safety, street connectivity, enjoyment of the neighbourhood for walking/cycling, and personal safety - were longitudinally associated with common forms of physical activity, namely walking to school, walking for leisure, and a composite measure of outdoor physical activity. We further aimed to investigate the moderating role of gender.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; East London; Environment; Neighbourhood; Perception; Physical activity; Walking
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31888573 PMCID: PMC6937816 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-8003-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Characteristics of the study participants by wave, 2012–2014 (n = 2260)
| Wave 1 | Wave 2 | Wave 3 | % Missing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposures | ||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 10.4 | |||
| % Further away | 25.5 | 20.7 | 18.8 | |
| % 1–5 min | 74.5 | 79.3 | 81.2 | |
| Perceived traffic safety | 13.4 | |||
| % Low | 10.5 | 10.4 | 9.9 | |
| % Medium | 31.3 | 35.4 | 34.0 | |
| % High | 58.2 | 54.2 | 56.1 | |
| Perceived street connectivity | 18.8 | |||
| % Low | 22.1 | 20.1 | 19.8 | |
| % Medium | 56.8 | 56.7 | 59.6 | |
| % High | 21.1 | 23.2 | 20.6 | |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 12.6 | |||
| % Strongly/slightly disagree | 23.5 | 25.6 | 25.5 | |
| % Slightly agree | 33.8 | 39.2 | 43.0 | |
| % Strongly agree | 42.7 | 35.2 | 31.5 | |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 15.1 | |||
| % Strongly disagree | 10.1 | 10.3 | 9.4 | |
| % Slightly disagree | 16.8 | 15.3 | 15.6 | |
| % Neither agree nor disagree | 24.0 | 23.5 | 22.6 | |
| % Slightly agree | 23.6 | 25.2 | 27.2 | |
| % Strongly agree | 25.6 | 25.8 | 25.3 | |
| Outcomes | ||||
| % walking to school | 77.5 | 76.5 | 76.0 | 4.9 |
| % walking for leisure | 40.1 | 34.3 | 29.9 | 10.0 |
| % reporting outdoor physical activity | 79.3 | 76.0 | 70.0 | 14.5 |
| Covariates | ||||
| % Girls | 43.6 | – | – | 0.0 |
| Ethnicity | 0.0 | |||
| % White: British | 16.9 | – | – | |
| % White: Mixed | 8.4 | – | – | |
| % Asian: Indian | 3.8 | – | – | |
| % Asian: Pakistani | 3.8 | – | – | |
| % Asian: Bangladeshi | 14.9 | – | – | |
| % Black: Caribbean | 4.9 | – | – | |
| % Black: African | 11.1 | – | – | |
| % Other | 36.2 | – | – | |
| % with health condition | 42.4 | 39.3 | 41.0 | 10.9 |
| % receiving free school meals at wave 1 | 37.7 | – | – | 2.0 |
| Family affluence | 3.9 | |||
| % Low | 10.7 | 7.0 | 5.0 | |
| % Medium | 53.3 | 50.6 | 51.1 | |
| % High | 36.0 | 42.4 | 43.9 | |
General associations of perceptions of the neighbourhood environment with walking to school across the 3 waves (n = 2260)
| Exposure | Unadjusted | Adjusteda | Gender-interactionb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | Further away | 1.00 | 0.140 | 1.00 | 0.177 | 0.890 | ||
| 1–5 min | 0.89 | [0.77,1.04] | 0.90 | [0.78,1.05] | ||||
| Perceived traffic safety | Low | 1.00 | 0.505 | 1.00 | 0.369 | 0.501 | ||
| Medium | 1.11 | [0.93,1.33] | 1.13 | [0.94,1.36] | ||||
| High | 1.10 | [0.92,1.32] | 1.14 | [0.94,1.38] | ||||
| Perceived street connectivity | Low | 1.00 | 0.303 | 1.00 | 0.245 | 0.863 | ||
| Medium | 1.10 | [0.95,1.27] | 1.10 | [0.95,1.28] | ||||
| High | 1.14 | [0.96,1.36] | 1.16 | [0.97,1.40] | ||||
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | Strongly/slightly disagree | 1.00 | 0.446 | 1.00 | 0.189 | 0.456 | ||
| Slightly agree | 1.02 | [0.89,1.18] | 1.00 | [0.86,1.17] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 0.94 | [0.81,1.09] | 0.89 | [0.75,1.05] | ||||
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | Strongly disagree | 1.00 | 0.770 | 1.00 | 0.700 | 0.841 | ||
| Slightly disagree | 1.14 | [0.92,1.42] | 1.14 | [0.91,1.42] | ||||
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1.04 | [0.85,1.27] | 1.02 | [0.83,1.27] | ||||
| Slightly agree | 1.06 | [0.86,1.31] | 1.07 | [0.85,1.34] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 1.08 | [0.88,1.34] | 1.11 | [0.89,1.40] | ||||
Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix)
a Adjusted for gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence, free school meal status at wave 1, time and the other perception variables of the table
b The adjusted model was replicated for each exposure with an additional interaction term between gender and exposure
Associations of cumulative perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and trajectories of perceptions with walking to school (n = 2260)
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | Gender-interactionc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | ||||
| Cumulative perceptiona | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 0.92 | [0.81,1.04] | 0.171 | 0.91 | [0.80,1.04] | 0.169 | 0.857 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 1.01 | [0.94,1.09] | 0.772 | 1.04 | [0.97,1.13] | 0.278 | 0.938 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 1.03 | [0.95,1.12] | 0.514 | 1.04 | [0.96,1.13] | 0.315 | 0.647 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 0.97 | [0.90,1.04] | 0.359 | 0.96 | [0.88,1.04] | 0.295 | 0.849 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 0.98 | [0.95,1.02] | 0.324 | 0.99 | [0.95,1.03] | 0.699 | 0.867 |
| Trajectory of perceptionb | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 1.06 | [0.93,1.02] | 0.367 | 1.07 | [0.94,1.23] | 0.319 | 0.956 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 0.96 | [0.88,1.04] | 0.323 | 0.97 | [0.89,1.06] | 0.496 | 0.365 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 1.01 | [0.93,1.10] | 0.828 | 1.02 | [0.93,1.11] | 0.716 | 0.862 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 0.96 | [0.89,1.02] | 0.196 | 0.96 | [0.89,1.03] | 0.240 | 0.605 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 0.99 | [0.91,1.01] | 0.606 | 1.00 | [0.95,1.04] | 0.890 | 0.944 |
a Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the clustering of individuals within schools (exchangeable working correlation matrix). The cumulative exposure are continuous variables constructed as the sum of scores of each exposure over the 3 waves. A higher score indicates a perception of supportive environment for the specific exposure. Adjusted models adjust for gender, ethnicity, health condition (at wave 3), family affluence (at wave 3), free school meal status at wave 1 and the other perception variables
b Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix). Each exposure variable measures change since wave 1 on a continuous scale. Each unit represents an average change in exposure by one category between the baseline and the end of the study (+ 1 = improvement of the neighbourhood by one category on average). The coefficients represent the time*trajectory interaction, which assesses whether exposure trajectory is associated with different trajectory of change in the outcome. Adjusted models adjust for time, gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence and free school meal status at wave 1, the other perception variables, and their time*trajectory interactions
c The adjusted models were replicated with the addition of interaction terms with gender
General associations of perceptions of the neighbourhood environment with walking for leisure across the 3 waves (n = 2260)
| Exposure | Unadjusted | Adjusteda | Gender-interactionb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | Further away | 1.00 | 0.050 | 1.00 | 0.086 | 0.760 | ||
| 1–5 min | 0.88 | [0.78,1.05] | 0.89 | [0.78,1.02] | ||||
| Perceived traffic safety | Low | 1.00 | 0.372 | 1.00 | 0.298 | 0.709 | ||
| Medium | 0.90 | [0.75,1.08] | 0.90 | [0.75,1.09] | ||||
| High | 0.88 | [0.74,1.05] | 0.86 | [0.71,1.04] | ||||
| Perceived street connectivity | Low | 1.00 | 0.149 | 1.00 | 0.267 | 0.964 | ||
| Medium | 1.15 | [0.99,1.34] | 1.13 | [0.97,1.32] | ||||
| High | 1.10 | [0.93,1.31] | 1.09 | [0.91,1.31] | ||||
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | Strongly/slightly disagree | 1.00 | 0.360 | 1.00 | 0.534 | 0.353 | ||
| Slightly agree | 1.02 | [0.89,1.17] | 1.02 | [0.88,1.18] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 1.10 | [0.95,1.27] | 1.09 | [0.92,1.29] | ||||
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | Strongly disagree | 1.00 | 0.068 | 1.00 | 0.034 | 0.881 | ||
| Slightly disagree | 1.28 | [1.03,1.59] | 1.28 | [1.02,1.62] | ||||
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1.09 | [0.88,1.34] | 1.09 | [0.87,1.36] | ||||
| Slightly agree | 1.24 | [1.01,1.54] | 1.31 | [1.04,1.65] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 1.11 | [0.90,1.38] | 1.18 | [0.93,1.49] | ||||
Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix)
a Adjusted for gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence, free school meal status at wave 1, time and the other perception variables of the table
b The adjusted model was replicated for each exposure with an additional interaction term between gender and exposure
Associations of cumulative perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and trajectories of perceptions with walking for leisure (n = 2260)
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | Gender-interactionc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | ||||
| Cumulative perceptiona | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 1.00 | [0.89,1.14] | 0.939 | 0.98 | [0.86,1.12] | 0.798 | 0.844 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 1.02 | [0.95,1.09] | 0.596 | 1.04 | [0.95,1.13] | 0.384 | 0.761 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 1.04 | [0.95,1.14] | 0.379 | 1.05 | [0.95,1.15] | 0.354 | 0.471 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 0.99 | [0.93,1.05] | 0.721 | 1.00 | [0.92,1.08] | 0.943 | 0.829 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 0.98 | [0.95,1.02] | 0.319 | 1.00 | [0.96,1.04] | 0.827 | 0.918 |
| Trajectory of perceptionb | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 0.87 | [0.76,1.05] | 0.053 | 0.86 | [0.74,1.00] | 0.049 | 0.932 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 0.98 | [0.90,1.07] | 0.725 | 0.98 | [0.90,1.08] | 0.707 | 0.334 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 1.00 | [0.91,1.10] | 0.962 | 1.00 | [0.91,1.10] | 0.971 | 0.240 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 1.02 | [0.95,1.09] | 0.665 | 1.02 | [0.95,1.11] | 0.583 | 0.260 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 1.00 | [0.90,1.11] | 0.994 | 1.00 | [0.95,1.05] | 0.942 | 0.992 |
a Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the clustering of individuals within schools (exchangeable working correlation matrix). The cumulative exposure are continuous variables constructed as the sum of scores of each exposure over the 3 waves. A higher score indicates a perception of supportive environment for the specific exposure. Adjusted models adjust for gender, ethnicity, health condition (at wave 3), family affluence (at wave 3), free school meal status at wave 1 and the other perception variables
b Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix). Each exposure variable measures change since wave 1 on a continuous scale. Each unit represents an average change in exposure by one category between the baseline and the end of the study (+ 1 = improvement of the neighbourhood by one category on average). The coefficients represent the time*trajectory interaction, which assesses whether exposure trajectory is associated with different trajectory of change in the outcome. Adjusted models adjust for time, gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence and free school meal status at wave 1, the other perception variables, and their time*trajectory interactions
c The adjusted models were replicated with the addition of interaction terms with gender
General associations of perceptions of the neighbourhood environment with outdoor physical activity across the 3 waves (n = 2260)
| Exposure | Unadjusted | Adjusteda | Gender-interactionb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | Further away | 1.00 | 0.639 | 1.00 | 0.946 | 0.674 | ||
| 1–5 min | 0.96 | [0.82,1.13] | 0.99 | [0.83,1.19] | ||||
| Perceived traffic safety | Low | 1.00 | 0.490 | 1.00 | 0.182 | 0.012 | ||
| Medium | 0.99 | [0.80,1.22] | 1.02 | [0.82,1.29] | ||||
| High | 0.92 | [0.75,1.14] | 0.90 | [0.71,1.14] | ||||
| Perceived street connectivity | Low | 1.00 | 0.222 | 1.00 | 0.077 | 0.719 | ||
| Medium | 1.05 | [0.90,1.23] | 1.15 | [0.97,1.36] | ||||
| High | 1.18 | [0.98,1.42] | 1.27 | [1.03,1.57] | ||||
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | Strongly/slightly disagree | 1.00 | 0.042 | 1.00 | 0.270 | 0.809 | ||
| Slightly agree | 0.93 | [0.80,1.07] | 0.95 | [0.81,1.11] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 1.10 | [0.94,1.29] | 1.07 | [0.89,1.29] | ||||
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | Strongly disagree | 1.00 | 0.324 | 1.00 | 0.507 | 0.697 | ||
| Slightly disagree | 1.06 | [0.83,1.34] | 1.12 | [0.86,1.46] | ||||
| Neither agree nor disagree | 0.95 | [0.75,1.19] | 0.96 | [0.75,1.23] | ||||
| Slightly agree | 1.06 | [0.84,1.33] | 1.09 | [0.84,1.41] | ||||
| Strongly agree | 1.13 | [0.91,1.41] | 1.09 | [0.85,1.39] | ||||
Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix)
a Adjusted for gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence, free school meal status at wave 1, time and the other perception variables of the table
b The adjusted model was replicated for each exposure with an additional interaction term between gender and exposure
Gender-specific general adjusted associations of perceptions of the neighbourhood environment with outdoor physical activity across the 3 waves (n = 2260)
| Perceived traffic safety | OR | 95%CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | |||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.002 | |
| Medium | 1.53 | [1.10,2.11] | |
| High | 1.21 | [0.89,1.64] | |
| Girls | |||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.147 | |
| Medium | 0.79 | [0.56,1.03] | |
| High | 0.74 | [0.52,0.96] | |
Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix). The model is adjusted for bus stop proximity, perceived street connectivity, enjoyment of the neighbourhood for walking/cycling, personal safety, ethnicity, self-rated health, family affluence and free school meal status at wave 1
Associations of cumulative perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and trajectories of perceptions with outdoor physical activity (n = 2260)
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | Gender-interactionc | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | ||||
| Cumulative perceptiona | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 0.95 | [0.86,1.06] | 0.377 | 0.94 | [0.83,1.07] | 0.331 | 0.900 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 1.03 | [0.97,1.09] | 0.332 | 1.00 | [0.93,1.08] | 0.988 | 0.535 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 0.99 | [0.93,1.06] | 0.873 | 1.03 | [0.96,1.11] | 0.398 | 0.816 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 1.03 | [0.99,1.07] | 0.165 | 1.01 | [0.95,1.08] | 0.730 | 0.510 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 1.05 | [1.01,1.08] | 0.006 | 1.02 | [0.98,1.07] | 0.278 | 0.825 |
| Trajectory of perceptionb | |||||||
| Perceived bus stop proximity | 1.11 | [0.95,1.29] | 0.192 | 1.11 | [0.93,1.32] | 0.248 | 0.095 |
| Perceived traffic safety | 0.94 | [0.86,1.04] | 0.230 | 0.94 | [0.84,1.04] | 0.222 | 0.828 |
| Perceived street connectivity | 1.08 | [0.98,1.18] | 0.112 | 1.07 | [0.97,1.19] | 0.172 | 0.091 |
| Enjoyment of neighbourhood for walking/cycling | 1.02 | [0.94,1.10] | 0.622 | 1.02 | [0.93,1.11] | 0.737 | 0.527 |
| Feeling safe (personal safety) | 1.01 | [0.9501.14] | 0.640 | 1.01 | [0.96,1.07] | 0.734 | 0.956 |
a Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the clustering of individuals within schools (exchangeable working correlation matrix). The cumulative exposure are continuous variables constructed as the sum of scores of each exposure over the 3 waves. A higher score indicates a perception of supportive environment for the specific exposure. Adjusted models adjust for gender, ethnicity, health condition (at wave 3), family affluence (at wave 3), free school meal status at wave 1 and the other perception variables
b Results are from logistic regression models estimated with Generalised Estimating Equations to account for the dependency across repeated measurements (unstructured working correlation matrix). Each exposure variable measures change since wave 1 on a continuous scale. Each unit represents an average change in exposure by one category between the baseline and the end of the study (+ 1 = improvement of the neighbourhood by one category on average). The coefficients represent the time*trajectory interaction, which assesses whether exposure trajectory is associated with different trajectory of change in the outcome. Adjusted models adjust for time, gender, ethnicity, health condition, family affluence and free school meal status at wave 1, the other perception variables, and their time*trajectory interactions
c The adjusted models were replicated with the addition of interaction terms with gender