| Literature DB >> 36034020 |
Chidinma Ihuoma Amuzie1,2, IkeOluwapo Ajayi3, Eniola Bamgboye3, Chukwuma David Umeokonkwo1,4, Christian Obasi Akpa1,4, Ugonma Okpechi Agbo5, Uche Ngozi Nwamoh2, Michael Izuka2, Muhammad Shakir Balogun1.
Abstract
Introduction: physical inactivity has been identified as the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality due to non-communicable diseases. Prevalence rates of 91.0% and 62.2%, have been documented among civil servants in the northern and southern parts of Nigeria, respectively. There is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between physical inactivity and environmental factors among civil servants in the State. This study assessed the prevalence and perceived environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among civil servants in Abia State Nigeria.Entities:
Keywords: Built environment; Nigeria; exercise; neighbourhood; perception; prevalence; residence characteristics; sedentary behaviour
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034020 PMCID: PMC9379468 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2022.42.74.31878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
sociodemographic characteristics of civil servants in Umuahia, Abia State, 2019 (N=440)
| Sociodemographic variables | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age group (years) | ||
| <25 | 28 | 6.4 |
| 25-44 | 292 | 66.4 |
| 45-64 | 120 | 27.3 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 170 | 38.7 |
| Female | 270 | 61.4 |
| Place of residence | ||
| Rural | 137 | 31.1 |
| Urban | 303 | 68.9 |
| Educational status | ||
| Primary | 20 | 4.6 |
| Secondary | 130 | 29.6 |
| Tertiary | 290 | 65.9 |
| Denomination | ||
| Catholic | 95 | 21.6 |
| Orthodox | 154 | 35.1 |
| Pentecostal | 190 | 43.3 |
| Cadre* | ||
| Junior (GL 1-6) | 123 | 28.1 |
| Senior (≥GL 7) | 315 | 71.9 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Married | 239 | 54.3 |
| Single | 187 | 42.5 |
| Separated (divorced/widowed) | 14 | 3.2 |
| Monthly income (Naira ₦) * | ||
| 18,000-35,999 | 168 | 38.4 |
| >36,000-71,999 | 199 | 45.4 |
| 72,000-89,999 | 13 | 3.0 |
| ≥90,000 | 58 | 13.2 |
| Number of functional vehicles owned ┼ | ||
| 0 | 190 | 43.2 |
| 1 | 145 | 33.0 |
| 2 | 86 | 19.6 |
| ≥3 | 19 | 4.3 |
n= 438 ┼ cars, trucks motorcycles
Figure 1prevalence of physical inactivity by sex among the respondents (N=440)
perceived neighbourhood environmental characteristics among civil servants in Umuahia, Abia State 2019, (N=440)
| Variables | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Not applicable (%) | Unsure (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High residential density | 340 (77.3) | 100 (22.7) | - | - |
| Shops within walking distance around my home | 370 (84.1) | 52 (11.8) | 5 (1.1) | 13 (3.0) |
| 10 to 15 minutes-walk to a transit/bus stop from my home | 341 (77.5) | 84 (19.1) | 6 (1.4) | 9 (2.0) |
| Presence of sidewalks in my neighborhood | 167 (38.0) | 118 (26.8) | 127 (28.9) | 28 (6.4) |
| Presence of bicycling facilities in or near my neighborhood | 75 (17.0) | 191 (43.4) | 137 (31.1) | 37 (8.4) |
| Presence of free/low-cost recreational facilities | 98 (22.3) | 208 (47.3) | 100 (22.7) | 34 (7.7) |
| Unsafe neighborhood due to night crime | 244(55.5) | 160 (36.4) | 17 (3.9) | 19 (4.3) |
| Unsafe neighborhood due to day crime | 90 (20.5) | 318 (72.3) | 15 (3.4) | 17 (3.9) |
| Many people are physically active in my neighborhood | 317 (72.0) | 90 (20.5) | 17 (3.9) | 16 (3.6) |
| Traffic unsafe for bicycling | 119 (27.0) | 269 (61.1) | 32 (7.3) | 20(4.5) |
| Traffic unsafe for walking | 109 (24.8) | 294 (66.8) | 20 (4.5) | 17 (3.9) |
| Interesting things to see in my neighborhood | 288(65.5) | 122 (27.7) | 14 (3.2) | 16 (3.6) |
| Well-maintained and unobstructed sidewalks | 84 (19.1) | 178 (40.5) | 135 (30.7) | 43 (9.8) |
| Well-maintained and unobstructed bicycle facilities | 75 (17.0) | 191 (43.4) | 137 (31.1) | 37 (8.4) |
| Many four-way intersections in my neighborhood | 169 (38.4) | 116 (26.4) | 103 (23.4) | 52 (11.8) |
| Places within easy walking distance in my neighborhood | 370 (84.1) | 54 (12.3) | 2 (0.5) | 14 (3.2) |
perceived neighbourhood environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among civil servants in Umuahia, Abia State, 2019
| Variables | Physical activity | cOR (95% CI) | P-value | AOR (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inactive (n%) | Active (n%) | |||||
| Residential density | ||||||
| Low | 38 (38.0) | 62 (62.0) | 0.58(0.37-0.91) | 0.018* | 0.78(0.39-1.41) | 0.372 |
| High | 175 (51.5) | 165 (48.5) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Shops within walking distance (n=422) | ||||||
| Disagree | 20 (38.5) | 32 (61.5) | 0.63(0.34-1.13) | 0.119 | - | - |
| Agree | 185 (50.0) | 185 (50.0) | 1 | - | ||
| Transits/bus stops (n=425) | ||||||
| Disagree | 40(47.6) | 44 (52.3) | 0.99(0.62-1.60) | 0.976 | - | - |
| Agree | 163 (47.8) | 178 (52.2) | 1 | - | ||
| Availability of neighborhood sidewalks (n=385) | ||||||
| Disagree | 66(55.9) | 52 (44.1) | 2.58 (1.59-4.20) | <0.001* | 2.02 (1.10-3.73) | 0.023 |
| Agree | 55(32.9) | 112 (67.1) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Availability of bicycle facilities (n=277) | ||||||
| Disagree | 78 (47.3) | 87 (52.7) | 1.74 (1.06-2.87) | 0.027* | 1.01 (0.53-1.91) | 0.975 |
| Agree | 38 (33.9) | 74 (66.1) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Availability of recreational facilities (n=306) | ||||||
| Disagree | 92 (44.2) | 116 (55.8) | 1.49 (0.91-2.46) | 0.114 | - | - |
| Agree | 34 (34.7) | 64 (65.3) | 1 | - | ||
| Night crime (n=404) | ||||||
| Agree | 132 (54.1) | 112 (45.9) | 1.68 (1.12-2.51) | 0.012* | 1.37 (0.78-2.36) | 0.251 |
| Disagree | 66 (41.3) | 94(58.7) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Day crime (n=408) | ||||||
| disagree | 163 (51.3) | 155 (48.7) | 1.51 (0.94-2.42) | 0.089 | - | - |
| Agree | 37(41.1) | 53(58.9) | 1 | - | ||
| Seeing people active (n=407) | ||||||
| Disagree | 42 (46.7) | 48 (53.3) | 0.89 (0.56-1.42) | 0.632 | - | - |
| Agree | 157 (49.5) | 160 (50.5) | 1 | - | ||
| Traffic against bicycles (n=388) | ||||||
| Disagree | 131(48.7) | 138 (51.3) | 0.97 (0.63-1.49) | 0.872 | - | - |
| Agree | 59 (49.6) | 60(50.4) | 1 | |||
| Traffic against walk (n=403) | ||||||
| Disagree | 152 (51.7) | 142 (48.3) | 1.52 (0.98-2.37) | 0.063 | ||
| Agree | 45 (41.3) | 64 (58.7) | 1 | |||
| Interesting things in the neighbourhood (n=410) | ||||||
| Disagree | 65 (53.3) | 57 (46.7) | 1.26 (0.82-1.92) | 0.290 | - | - |
| Agree | 137 (47.6) | 151 (52.4) | ||||
| Well-maintained sidewalks(n=262) | ||||||
| Disagree | 77 (74.0) | 101 (63.9) | 1.61 (0.93-2.77) | 0.086 | - | - |
| Agree | 27 (26.0) | 57 (36.9) | 1 | - | ||
| Well-maintained bicycle facilities (n=266) | ||||||
| Disagree | 81 (42.4) | 110 (57.6) | 1.66 (0.94-2.94) | 0.077 | - | - |
| Agree | 23 (30.7) | 52 (69.3) | 1 | - | ||
| Four-way intersections (n= 285) | ||||||
| Disagree | 48 (41.4) | 68 (58.6) | 0.99 (0.62-1.61) | 0.995 | - | - |
| Agree | 70 (41.4) | 99 (58.6) | 1 | - | ||
| Places within walking distance (n=424) | ||||||
| Disagree | 25 (53.7) | 29 (46.3) | 0.90 (0.51-1.60) | 0.719 | - | - |
| Agree | 181 (48.9) | 189 (51.1) | 1 | |||
COR: Crude Odds Ratio; aOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI: Confidence Interval