4.3 Article

Neighbourhood walkability and dietary attributes: effect modification by area-level socio-economic status

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 2593-2600

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980022001197

Keywords

Built environment; Population health; Health inequalities; FFQ; Cardiometabolic diseases

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [233200, 1007544]
  2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  3. Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd.
  4. Alphapharm Pty Ltd.
  5. Amgen Australia
  6. AstraZeneca
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. City Health Centre-Diabetes Service-Canberra
  9. Department of Health and Community Services, Northern Territory
  10. Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania
  11. Department of Health, New South Wales
  12. Department of Health, Western Australia
  13. Department of Health, South Australia
  14. Department of Human Services, Victoria
  15. Diabetes Australia
  16. Diabetes Australia Northern Territory
  17. Eli Lilly Australia
  18. Estate of the Late Edward Wilson
  19. GlaxoSmithKline
  20. Jack Brockhoff Foundation
  21. Janssen-Cilag
  22. Kidney Health Australia
  23. Marian FH Flack Trust
  24. Menzies Research Institute
  25. Merck Sharp Dohme
  26. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  27. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals
  28. Pfizer Pty Ltd.
  29. Pratt Foundation
  30. Queensland Health
  31. Roche Diagnostics Australia
  32. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney
  33. Sanofi Aventis
  34. sanofi-synthelabo
  35. Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (NHMRC) [9100003]
  36. NHMRC [1003960, 1107672, 1078360]
  37. Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Higher walkability may be associated with dietary attributes depending on area-level socio-economic status (SES), with higher walkability being related to higher Western diet scores and total energy intake in low SES areas, and lower Western diet scores and total energy intake in high SES areas.
Objective: Higher neighbourhood walkability would be expected to contribute to better health, but the relevant evidence is inconsistent. This may be because residents' dietary attributes, which vary with socio-economic status (SES) and influence their health, can be related to walkability. We examined associations of walkability with dietary attributes and potential effect modification by area-level SES. Design: The exposure variable of this cross-sectional study was neighbourhood walkability, calculated using residential density, intersection density and destination density within 1-km street-network buffer around each participant's residence. The outcome variables were dietary patterns (Western, prudent and mixed) and total dietary energy intake, derived from a FFQ. Main and interaction effects with area-level SES were estimated using two-level linear regression models. Setting: Participants were from all states and territories in Australia. Participants: The analytical sample included 3590 participants (54 % women, age range 34 to 86). Results: Walkability was not associated with dietary attributes in the whole sample. However, we found interaction effects of walkability and area-level SES on Western diet scores (P < 0 center dot 001) and total energy intake (P = 0 center dot 012). In low SES areas, higher walkability was associated with higher Western dietary patterns (P = 0 center dot 062) and higher total energy intake (P = 0 center dot 066). In high SES areas, higher walkability was associated with lower Western diet scores (P = 0 center dot 021) and lower total energy intake (P = 0 center dot 058). Conclusions: Higher walkability may not be necessarily conducive to better health in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Public health initiatives to enhance neighbourhood walkability need to consider food environments and socio-economic contexts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available