Social Determinants of Physical Inactivity: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 57: Line 57:


Who uses new walking & cycling infrastructure & how? Longitudinal results from the UK iConnet study. Preventative Medicine, Nov 2013, 57(5):518-24
Who uses new walking & cycling infrastructure & how? Longitudinal results from the UK iConnet study. Preventative Medicine, Nov 2013, 57(5):518-24
</ref>. However, despite this the authors caution  "the infrastructure may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity."<br>
</ref>. However, despite this the authors caution  "the infrastructure may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity."
 
Many cities in the world have introduced bike-share schemes, but there is some evidence that for the scheme in London, UK. the majority of the users of the scheme were males living in socioeconomically advantaged areas where cycling was already very popular, concluding that the infrastructure "may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity.<ref>Ogilvie F1, Goodman A.
 
Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Preventative Medicine, 2012 Jul;55(1):40-5
</ref>". <br>


== References  ==
== References  ==

Revision as of 23:00, 25 July 2017

Welcome to Physical Activity Content Development Project. This page is being developed by participants of a project to populate the Physical Activity section of Physiopedia. 
  • Please do not edit unless you are involved in this project, but please come back in the near future to check out new information!!  
  • If you would like to get involved in this project and earn accreditation for your contributions, please get in touch!

Tips for writing this page:

Please consider including the following topics in this page plus other subjects that you think are appropriate:

  1. x
  2. x

A quick word on content:

When you write this page please include:

  • Evidence (where appropriate and available
  • References
  • Images and videos
  • A list of open online resources that we can link to
  • Links to other pages in this project

Example content:

Original Editor - Add a link to your Physiopedia profile here.

Top Contributors - Wendy Walker, Mariam Hashem, Simisola Ajeyalemi, Kim Jackson, Tarina van der Stockt, Shaimaa Eldib, Rucha Gadgil, Amrita Patro, Lucinda hampton, Robin Tacchetti, Admin, Tony Lowe and Michelle Lee  

Physical Inactivity/Sedentary Behaviour[edit | edit source]

Physical activity [PA] is known to have health benefits, including reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, several cancers and NCDs. Yet despite this, in many countries of the world a large number of adults display sedentary behaviour [SB], spending a large proportion of their waking hours sitting: often at a desk at work, on a sofa at home, and on transport, whether public transport or private vehicle. These sedentary behaviours have low energy expenditure, and are associated with health risks, independent of PA levels[1].

Social Determinants Definition[edit | edit source]

Factors in the social and physical environment which impose a direct influence on the opportunity to engage in physical activity; these are most often open to modification.

Social inequality includes: income inequality and education inequality, both of which may have an effect on activity levels and SB.

Community traits such as social cohesion, perceived benefits of PA and attitudes to age & gender restrictions may also play a role.

Environmental determinants include access to public green areas, provision of safe areas to walk in eg. on street, as well as the design of residential areas which may or may not include walkable neighbourhood routes[2], and provision of cycle routes.

Transportation[edit | edit source]

Transportation provision can promote PA by providing safe and attractive routes to walk or cycle in, which may be combined with public transport. If government policy can lead to improved infrastructure which promotes PA as part of the commute to work or travel to school, then the health benefits for the community should be substantial[3].

A study of infrastructure changes (including traffic-free bridges and walking/cycling routes) at 3 sites in the UK demonstrated sustained use over the 2 years following construction[4]. However, despite this the authors caution "the infrastructure may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity."

Many cities in the world have introduced bike-share schemes, but there is some evidence that for the scheme in London, UK. the majority of the users of the scheme were males living in socioeconomically advantaged areas where cycling was already very popular, concluding that the infrastructure "may primarily have attracted existing walkers and cyclists, and may have catered more to the socio-economically advantaged. This may limit its impacts on population health and health equity.[5]".

References[edit | edit source]

References will automatically be added here, see adding references tutorial.

  1. Healy GN, Wijndaele K, Dunstan D,. Shaw JE, Salmon J, Zimmet PZ, Owen N. 2008 Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care, 31, 369-371
  2. Heath G W, Brownson R C, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell KE, Ramsey LT 2006. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health Vol 3, Issue s1, Pages s55-s76.
  3. Pucher j, Dill J, Handy S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs & policies to increase bicyling: an international review. Preventative Medicine, 50, s106-s125.
  4. Goodman A, Sahlqvist S, Ogilvie D. (2013) Who uses new walking & cycling infrastructure & how? Longitudinal results from the UK iConnet study. Preventative Medicine, Nov 2013, 57(5):518-24
  5. Ogilvie F1, Goodman A. Inequalities in usage of a public bicycle sharing scheme: socio-demographic predictors of uptake and usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Preventative Medicine, 2012 Jul;55(1):40-5