Physical Activity and the Environment

1
Physical Activity and the Environment

• EPHE 348

2
So whats the big deal?

• The rise of social cognition theories
• Back to the behaviorists?
• Big picture ecology

3
Blaming the Individual?
4
Streaming of Interventions(McKinlay Marceau,
2000)
Upstream National Level Policies (laws)
Midstream Community, Worksite, Physician
Policies
Downstream Self-regulation Intervention,
Persuasion of Lifestyle Choice
5
Environment

• Climate (small but consistent change in PA)
• Suburbia noticeable issue
• Point of decision prompts have good evidence
  (still small s)

6
What is important to the Built Environment.?

• List in groups

7
Features of the Neighborhood?

• Movement/flow (connectivity)
• Aesthetics
• Safety
• Quality
• Access to retail
• Access to recreation

8
Victoria (Rhodes et al. 2006, 2007)
9
Canada (CFLRI, 2006)

• More than 90 of schools have access to
  gymnasiums, playing fields, or permit access to
  their outdoor facilities outside of school hours.
  
• 80 of municipalities indicate that there are
  multi-use trails and paths available for physical
  activity that prohibit motorized traffic.

10
Overall Results

• Duncan Spence (2005)
• Meta-analysis of physical activity built
  environment showed very small-trivial ES
• Some reliable but small results around aesthetics
  and access
• Personal and Social factors contribute most to PA
• Choice has been shown as an important variable
• Not linked to exercise

11
Future Directions

• 1) Natural experiments (community environment
  change)
• 2) Integration with inter- and intra-personal
  constructs.

12
Proximity to Retail(Rhodes, Brown McIntyre,
2006 Rhodes et al., 2007)
13
Proximity to Recreation (Rhodes et al., 2006
Rhodes et al., 2007)
14
Home Environment

• Evidence for a relationship with PA and home
  equipment
• Jakicic et al. (1999) showed experimental
  evidence for this effect

15
Canine Environment..?

• What about dog ownership?

16
Dog Ownership and Physical Activity (Brown
Rhodes, 2006)

• Examined the relationship between walking, and
  physical activity between people who owned dogs,
  and those who did not own dogs in the Capital
  Region District of Greater Victoria
• A random sample of men (n 177) and women (n
  174) aged 20-80 years participated
• Dog owners defined as primary
• caregiver of the dog

17
(No Transcript)
18
Walking beyond Intention
Intention
Walking
Responsibility
Dog Ownership
19
UVIC Study Dog Walking and Park Use in Victoria
Wharf Higgins et al. submitted

• Limit of Self-report
• Study observed six parks in the CRD over good and
  bad weather conditions
• Results showed huge difference from weather in
  non-dog owners but no difference for owners
• Dog owners were on the move whereas non-owners
  where very mixed in movement profiles

20
What Can We Do with These Results?

• Cant tell people to go out and buy a dog!
• Can we promote dog walking among current owners?
• Approximately 20 of the Canadian population
  (Stats Can, 2004)
• 30-50 of dog owners do not walk their dogs

21
UVIC study

• Collaborators (Holly Tuokko, Michelle Porter,
  Vivienne Temple, Joan Wharf Higgins)
• Can we promote walking through dog
  responsibility?
• Use of GPS tracking and pedometers

22
Dog Ownership Physical Activity and Health
Recruitment

• 150 Dog owners who do not regularly walk their
  dog will be randomly assigned to one of 3 groups

Control Group
Experimental Group A Dog Dental Health
Experimental Group B Dog Physical Activity
- Baseline questionnaire - Wear pedometer for 1
week

• - Baseline questionnaire
• Wear pedometer for 1 week
• - Dog dental health brochure

• - Baseline questionnaire
• Wear pedometer for 1 week
• - Dog physical activity brochure

6 Weeks later All groups will receive a brief
questionnaire to track their physical activity
At three months all groups will receive a follow
up questionnaire package including a
questionnaire and pedometer to be worn for one
week.