Physical Activity and the Environment EPHE 348

Physical Activity and the Environment EPHE 348

So what’s the big deal? § The rise of social cognition theories § Back to the behaviorists? § Big picture ecology

Blaming the Individual?

Streaming of Interventions (Mc. Kinlay & Marceau, 2000) Upstream: National Level Policies (laws) Midstream: Community, Worksite, Physician Policies Downstream: Self-regulation Intervention, Persuasion of Lifestyle Choice

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

What is important to the Built Environment…. ? § List in groups……

Features of the Neighborhood? § § § Movement/flow (connectivity) Aesthetics Safety Quality Access to retail Access to recreation

Victoria: (Rhodes et al. 2006, 2007)

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.

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

Future Directions § 1) Natural experiments (community environment change) § 2) Integration with inter- and intrapersonal constructs….

Proximity to Retail (Rhodes, Brown & Mc. Intyre, 2006; Rhodes et al. , 2007)

Proximity to Recreation (Rhodes et al. , 2006; Rhodes et al. , 2007)

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

Canine Environment…. . ? § What about dog ownership?

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

Walking beyond Intention Walking Responsibility Dog Ownership

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 nondog owners but no difference for owners § Dog owners were on the move whereas non-owners where very mixed in movement profiles…

What Can We Do with These Results? § Can’t 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

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

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 - 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.