The impact of environmental community profile on population physical activity

Aim. To evaluate the impact of environmental community profile on the physical activity among the residents of Siberia.
Methods. A cross-sectional study of 1263 participants aged 35–70 years was performed. All respondents were surveyed to assess their environmental community profile using the Neighborhood Environmental Walkability Scale and physical activity using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The estimated binary indicators of physical activity, including driving, cycling, transport and recreational walking, sports, daily brisk walking (over 150 minutes per week). Logistic regression adjusted to the gender, age and socio-economic parameters was used to determine the presence of any associations between the environmental community profile and physical activity. The cluster analysis was used to group the communities by their environmental profile on the high walkability level and low walkability level.
Results. Car driving was negatively associated with pedestrian and cycling facilities within the selected communities (OR 0.84; 0.71–0.99). The positive correlation of transport walking with the access to the community facilities (OR = 1.48; 1.17–1.87) and pedestrian and cycling facilities (OR = 1.24; 1.06–1.44) was found. The negative association of transport walking with traffic safety (OR = 0.74; 0.57–0.97) was determined. Recreational walking was positively associated with the access to the community facilities (OR = 1.23; 1.04–1.45), pedestrian and cycling facilities (OR = 1.20; 1.08–1.33), aesthetics (OR = 1.30; 1.11–1.51) and walkability index (OR = 1.45; 1.23–1.87). Brisk walking of more than 150 minutes per week was positively associated with the access to the community facilities (OR = 1.22; 1.02–1.47) and pedestrian and cycling facilities (OR = 1.15; 1.02–1.29).
Conclusion. The impact of the environmental community profile on the transport physical was considered as a positive and was consistent with the results of other similar studies. However, some associations require further in-depth analysis.

1. Biswas A., Oh P.I., Faulkner G.E., Bajaj R.R., Silver M.A., Mitchell M.S., Alter D.A. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015; 162 (2): 123–132. doi: 10.7326/M14-1651

2. Hallal P.C., Andersen L.B., Bull F.C., Guthold R., Haskell W., Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012; 380 (9838): 247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1

3. Solov'ev D.A., Danilova E.S., Popovich M.V., Zinov'eva V.I., Usova E.V., Glazunov I.S., Linchak R.M. Strategies to increase physical activity in the population: International experience. Profilakticheskaya meditsina. 2015; 18 (6): 5–7. (In Russian.) doi: 10.17116/profmed20151865-7

4. Balanova Iu.A., Kontsevaia A.V., Shal'nova S.A., Deev A.D., Artamonova G.V., Gatagonova T.M. et al. Prevalence of behavioral risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the Russian population: Results of the ESSE-RF epidemiological study. Profilakticheskaya meditsina. 2014; 17 (5): 42–52. (In Russian.)

5. Maksimov S.A. Occupational aspects of epidemiology of overweight: contemporary tendencies and prospects of prophylaxis (review of literature). Medicina truda i promyslennaa ekologia. 2013; (5): 53–57. (In Russian.)

6. Solov’eva T.S. The level of physical activity and motivation of urban population for physical exercises and sports. Problems of Territory’s Development. 2016; 83 (3): 119–136. (In Russian.)

7. Potemkina R.A. Increasing physical activity in the population of Russia: сurrent approaches to elaborating population programs. Profilakticheskaya meditsina. 2014; 17 (1): 6–11. (In Russian.)

8. Arcaya M.C., Tucker-Seeley R.D., Kim R., Schnake-Mahl A., So M., Subramanian S.V. Research on neighborhood effects on health in the United States: A systematic review of study characteristics. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 168: 16–29. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.047

9. Barbarash O.L., Artamonova G.V., Indukaeva E.V., Maksimov S.A. International epidemiological study of noncommunicable diseases in Russia: protocol. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2018; 7 (4): 128-135. (In Russian) doi: 10.17802/2306-1278-2018-7-4-128-135

10. Saelens B.E., Sallis J.F., Black J.B., Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(9): 1552–1558.

11. Craig C.L., Marshall A.L., Sjöström M., Bauman A.E., Booth M.L., Ainsworth B.E. et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35(8): 1381–1395. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB

12. Van Holle V., Deforche B., Van Cauwenberg J., Goubert L., Maes L., Van de Weghe N., De Bourdeaudhuij I. Relationship between the physical environment and different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 807. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-807

13. Mayne D., Morgan G., Willmore A., Rose N., Jalaludin B., Bambrick H., Bauman A. An objective index of walkability for research and planning in the Sydney metropolitan region of New South Wales, Australia: an ecological study. Int J Health Geogr. 2013; 12 (1): 61. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-12-61

14. Sallis J.F., Cerin E., Conway T.L., Adams M.A., Frank L.D., Pratt M. et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2016; 387 (10034): 2207–2217. doi: 10.1016/S01406736(15)01284-2

15. Kerr J., Emond J.A., Badland H., Reis R., Sarmiento O., Carlson J. et al. Perceived neighborhood environmental attributes associated with walking and cycling for transport among adult residents of 17 cities in 12 countries: the IPEN Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2016; 124 (3): 290–298. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1409466

16. Cerin E., Cain K.L., Conway T.L., Van Dyck D., Hinckson E., Schipperijn J. et al. Neighborhood environments and objectively measured physical activity in 11 countries. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014; 46 (12): 2253–2264. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000367.

17. Mosquera J., Parra D.C., Gomez L.F., Sarmiento O., Schmid T., Jacoby E. An inside look at active transportation in Bogotá: a qualitative study. J Phys Act Health. 2012; 9 (6): 776–785.

18. Hino A.A., Reis R.S., Sarmiento O.L. Parra D.C., Brownson R.C. Built environment and physical activity for transportation in adults from Curitiba, Brazil. J. Urban Health. 2014; 91 (3): 446–462. doi: 10.1007/s11524-013-9831-x

19. Lin C.Y., Liao Y. Perceptions of activity-supportive environment and motorcycle use among urban Taiwanese adults. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17 (1): 665. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4682-0

20.