| Literature DB >> 34900922 |
Zhengying Liu1, Astrid Kemperman2, Harry Timmermans2.
Abstract
Background: As life expectancy and health expenditure consumed by older people increase, maintaining a better health and quality of life for older adults has become an important social issue. Research indicates that physical activity may help address this challenge. Moreover, it is believed that improved quality of life and health benefits from physical activity can be achieved through interventions in the neighborhood environments. However, existing knowledge has often been based on bivariate relationships between these factors, and few studies have formally examined the extent to which any association between neighborhood environments, health, and quality of life may be mediated by the level of physical activity. This paper aims to investigate the direct and indirect influence of neighborhood characteristics on the health and quality of life of older adults, taking into account physical activity behavior and socio-demographic characteristics in a more comprehensive framework.Entities:
Keywords: health; neighborhood characteristics; older adults; path analysis; physical activity; quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34900922 PMCID: PMC8652252 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.783510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 363 respondents).
|
| |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Overall quality of life (M ± SD) | 3.67 ± 0.535 |
| General health status (M ± SD) | 3.45 ± 0.665 |
| Leisure-time physical activity levels (MET·min·wk−1) (Med; Q1–Q3) | 2,166.0 (1,310.9; 3,129.0) |
| Travel-related physical activity levels (MET·min·wk−1) (Med; Q1–Q3) | 802.0 (456.0; 1,347.0) |
|
| |
|
| |
| Male (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 47.7 |
| Aged 75 years or older (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 36.9 |
| High education (1 if high school or higher, 0 otherwise) (%) | 38.0 |
| Severe physical limitations (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 9.4 |
| Presence of grandchildren under 12 in household (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 19.6 |
|
| |
| Live in the inner city (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 35.0 |
| High accessibility to local shops (1 if <10 min, 0 otherwise) (%) | 73.6 |
| Ln distance to the nearest park (M ± SD) | 7.1 ± 0.7 |
| Satisfied with neighborhood aesthetics (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 47.4 |
| Satisfied with footpath conditions (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 84.8 |
| Satisfied with traffic safety (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 47.7 |
| Satisfied with crime safety (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 70.8 |
| High social capital (1 if with a lot of friends or neighbors) (%) | 41.0 |
| Good social cohesion (1 if true, 0 otherwise) (%) | 73.8 |
Goodness-of-fit of the model.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | 0.005 |
| 90% confidence interval for RMSEA | 0.000; 0.042 |
| Probability RMSEA ≤ 0.05 | 0.987 |
| Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) | 0.031 |
| Comparative fit index (CFI) | 0.999 |
| Incremental fit index (IFI) | 0.998 |
Path analysis model estimates (standardized effects).
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||||
| General health | 0.127 | 0.127 | ||||||
| Leisure-time physical activity levels | 0.008 | 0.064 | 0.064 | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Male | 0.245 | 0.245 | ||||||
| Aged 75 years or older | −0.525 | −0.525 | ||||||
| High education | 0.157 | 0.160 | 0.021 | 0.333 | 0.333 | |||
| Physical limitations | −0.059 | −0.463 | −0.463 | |||||
| Presence of grandchildren | 0.197 | 0.197 | 0.800 | 0.800 | ||||
| Live in the inner city | 0.135 | 0.135 | ||||||
| Accessibility to local shops | −0.459 | −0.459 | ||||||
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 0.173 | 0.190 | 0.126 | 0.126 | ||||
| Traffic safety | 0.122 | 0.154 | 0.249 | 0.249 | ||||
| Social capital | 0.003 | 0.027 | 0.419 | 0.419 | ||||
P <0.10,
P <0.05,
P <0.01.
Figure 2Significant direct effects.