| Literature DB >> 32182278 |
Sarah Elshahat1, Michael O'Rorke2, Deepti Adlakha3.
Abstract
Insufficient physical activity (PA) is the fourth major risk factor for many non-communicable diseases and premature mortality worldwide. Features of the built environment (BE) play a considerable role in determining population PA behaviors. The majority of evidence for PA-BE relationships comes from high-income countries and may not be generalizable to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aim to systematically review the literature and assess the associations between perceived and/or objective BE characteristics and PA domains in LMICs. This review adopted a systematic search strategy for English language articles published between January 2000 and June 2019 from four electronic databases-Medline, Embase, Web of Science and PubMed-adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies addressing the associations between self-reported and/or objective BE and PA were only included if they were conducted in LMICs, according to the World Bank classification list. Articles investigating PA-BE relationships across any age groups were included, and all study designs were eligible, except for qualitative studies and reviews. Thirty-three studies were included for evidence synthesis. Cross-sectional studies were the most prevailing study design (97%), revealing a notable gap in longitudinal PA-BE research in LMICs. A majority of the BE factors were not associated with different PA domains while others (e.g., density, proximity to services, aesthetics) exhibited an inconsistent association. Land-use mix diversity was positively associated with transport PA and the presence of recreation facilities resulted in an increase in PA during leisure-time. Increased safety from crime at night consistently increased total PA and walking levels. Research exploring the associations between BE attributes and PA behaviors in LMICs appears to be limited and is primarily cross-sectional. Longitudinal research studies with objective measures are needed for inferring well-grounded PA-BE causal relationships and informing the design of evidence-based environmental interventions for increasing PA levels in LMICs.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32182278 PMCID: PMC7077823 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1PRISMA flow chart of the research results.
Relationships between leisure PA and BE attributes across included studies.
| BE attributes | PA-BE relationships | % studies supporting the predicted association | Summary codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant (+) | Significant (-) | Non-significant | |||
| Land-use mix diversity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 |
| Residential density | N/A | [ | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Park density | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Leisure amenities availability | [ | [ | N/A | 4/4 = 100% | ++ |
| Land-use mix access | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Leisure facilities proximity | [ | [ | [ | 2/5 = 40% | ? |
| Transit stops proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/3 = 0% | 00 |
| Services proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 |
| Aesthetics | [ | N/A | [ | 3/6 = 50% | ? |
| Infrastructure to walk and cycle | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/3 = 0% | 00 |
| Walkability | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + |
| Street connectivity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Sidewalks | [ | [ | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Terrain slope | N/A | [ | 1/1 = 100% | - | |
| Bike path availability | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Crime safety | [ | [ | [ | 1/5 = 20% | 000 |
| Traffic safety | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/4 = 0% | 00 |
| District income | [ | N/A | N/A | 2/2 = 100% | + |
Number of articles supporting the predicted association divided by the entire number of studies investigated each BE variable.
Studies investigating variables signed , , or was not considered in the coding unless all studies solely investigated the same variable.
The principles of evidence summary coding were adapted from Sallis et al [32]; +/- = positive or negative association (60–100% of articles supporting the predicted association); 0 = No relationship (0–33% of articles supporting the predicted association); ? = inconsistent relationship (34–59% of articles supporting the predicted association). Single signed codes (+, - or 0) were given for BE variables that were investigated only by 1–2 studies with respect to certain PA domains; When relationships were investigated in (3–4) or > 4 studies, double (++, - or 00) and triple (+++, - or 000) signed summary coding was applied, respectively.
association with physical inactivity.
reduced/lack of access.
feeling unsafe.
Relationships between travel PA and BE attributes across included studies.
| BE attributes | PA-BE relationships | % studies supporting the predicted association | Summary codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant (+) | Significant (-) | Non-significant | |||
| Land-use mix diversity | [ | N/A | [ | 2/3 = 67% | ++ |
| Residential density | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Leisure amenities availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Land-use mix access | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 |
| Recreational facilities proximity | N/A | [ | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Transit stops proximity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Aesthetics | [ | [ | [ | 2/3 = 67% | -- |
| Infrastructure to walk/cycle | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/3 = 0% | 00 |
| Street connectivity | N/A | [ | [ | 2/2 = 100% | - |
| Sidewalks | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Crime safety | N/A | [ | [ | 2/3 = 67% | -- |
| Traffic safety | [ | N/A | [ | 0/3 = 0% | 00 |
Number of articles supporting the predicted association divided by the entire number of studies investigated each BE variable.
Studies investigating variables signed , , or was not considered in the coding unless all studies solely investigated the same variable.
The principles of evidence summary coding were adapted from Sallis et al [32]; +/- = positive or negative association (60–100% of articles supporting the predicted association); 0 = No relationship (0–33% of articles supporting the predicted association); ? = inconsistent relationship (34–59% of articles supporting the predicted association). Single signed codes (+, - or 0) were given for BE variables that were investigated only by 1–2 studies with respect to certain PA domains; When relationships were investigated in (3–4) or > 4 studies, double (++, - or 00) and triple (+++, - or 000) signed summary coding was applied, respectively.
association with physical inactivity.
feeling unsafe.
unpleasant aesthetics.
Relationships between walking/ cycling and BE attributes across included studies.
| PA type | BE attributes | PA-BE relationships | % studies supporting the predicted association | Summary codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant (+) | Significant (-) | Non-significant | ||||
| Residential density | [ | N/A | N/A | 2/2 = 100% | + | |
| Commercial density | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Street density | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | ? | |
| Leisure amenities availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Transit stops proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Services proximity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Aesthetics | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Infrastructure for walking | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Walkability | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Street connectivity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Sidewalks | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | ? | |
| Terrain slope | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Paved streets | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | ||
| Bike path availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Bike path proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Traffic safety | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/4 = 0% | 00 | |
| Total crime safety | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Crime safety during day | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Crime safety at night | N/A | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | - | |
| District income | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/3 = 0% | 00 | |
| Residential density | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Street density | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Leisure amenities availability | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Recreational facilities proximity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/4 = 25% | 00 | |
| Transit stops proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Services proximity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Squares proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Aesthetics | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 | |
| Infrastructure for safe walking | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Walkability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Street connectivity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Sidewalks | [ | [ | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Paved streets | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Bike path proximity | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Crime safety | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/4 = 0% | 00 | |
| Traffic safety | [ | N/A | [ | 1/5 = 20% | 000 | |
| District income | [ | N/A | [ | 2/3 = 67% | ++ | |
| Residential density | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Park density | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | ||
| Leisure amenities availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Transit stops proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Services proximity | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Aesthetics | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Infrastructure for safe walking | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Street connectivity | N/A | [ | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Sidewalks | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 | |
| Terrain slope | N/A | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | - | |
| Bike path availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Bike path proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Crime safety during day | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 | |
| Crime safety at night | [ | N/A | [ | 2/3 = 67% | ++ | |
| Traffic safety | [ | N/A | [ | 1/4 = 25% | 00 | |
| Residential density | N/A | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | - | |
| Commercial density | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Street density | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
| Transit stops proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Services proximity | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Infrastructure for cycling | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Street connectivity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Sidewalks | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Terrain slope | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Bike path availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 | |
| Bike path proximity | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Crime safety | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 | |
| Traffic safety | N/A | [ | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 | |
| District income | N/A | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | - | |
Number of articles supporting the predicted association divided by the entire number of studies investigated each BE variable.
Studies investigating variables signed , or was not considered in the coding unless all studies solely investigated the same variable.
The principles of evidence summary coding were adapted from Sallis et al [32]; +/- = positive or negative association (60–100% of articles supporting the predicted association); 0 = No relationship (0–33% of articles supporting the predicted association); ? = inconsistent relationship (34–59% of articles supporting the predicted association). Single signed codes (+, - or 0) were given for BE variables that were investigated only by 1–2 studies with respect to certain PA domains; When relationships were investigated in (3–4) or > 4 studies, double (++, - or 00) and triple (+++, - or 000) signed summary coding was applied, respectively.
reduced/lack of access.
feeling unsafe.
Relationships between total PA and BE attributes across included studies.
| BE attributes | PA-BE relationships | % studies supporting the predicted association | Summary codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant (+) | Significant (-) | Non-significant | |||
| Residential density | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Leisure amenities availability | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/1 = 0% | 0 |
| Recreational facilities proximity | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + |
| Transit stops proximity | [ | [ | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 |
| Services proximity | N/A | [ | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 |
| Aesthetics | N/A | N/A | [ | 0/2 = 0% | 0 |
| Infrastructure for cycling/walking | [ | N/A | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + |
| Street connectivity | N/A | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | − |
| Sidewalks | [ | N/A | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 |
| Terrain slope | [ | N/A | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
| Bike path availability | [ | N/A | [ | 1/2 = 50% | ? |
| Crime safety during day | [ | [ | [ | 2/4 = 50% | ? |
| Crime safety at night | [ | N/A | [ | 3/4 = 75% | ++ |
| Traffic safety | N/A | [ | [ | 1/3 = 33% | 00 |
| Urbanicity | [ | N/A | N/A | 3/3 = 100% | ++ |
Number of articles supporting the predicted association divided by the entire number of studies investigated each BE variable.
Studies investigating variables signed or was not considered in the coding unless all studies solely investigated the same variable.
The principles of evidence summary coding were adapted from Sallis et al [32]; +/- = positive or negative association (60–100% of articles supporting the predicted association); 0 = No relationship (0–33% of articles supporting the predicted association); ? = inconsistent relationship (34–59% of articles supporting the predicted association). Single signed codes (+, - or 0) were given for BE variables that were investigated only by 1–2 studies with respect to certain PA domains; When relationships were investigated in (3–4) or > 4 studies, double (++, - or 00) and triple (+++, - or 000) signed summary coding was applied, respectively.
association with physical inactivity.
reduced/lack of access.