4.2 Article

Perceived environmental barriers to physical activity in young adults in Dhaka City, Bangladesh-does gender matter?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 40-46

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihx057

Keywords

Developing countries; Evidence-based policy; Healthy cities; Research to policy; Safety; Urban health

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Physical activity (PA) has demonstrated health benefits, but participation is low in many countries. Little is known about environmental barriers to PA among young Asian adults. The purpose of this study was to identify common perceived environmental barriers to PA in young adults in Dhaka, Bangladesh and to examine if these barriers differed by gender. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study with a self-administered survey and data collected from a convenience sample of 573 students aged 20.71 +/- 1.35 years (female 45%) in Dhaka. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between environmental barriers and gender, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: Poor street lighting at night (62%) and a lack of convenient places to do PA (56%) were the most frequently reported environmental barriers to PA. Females were more likely than males to identify a lack of neighbourhood safety (OR 4.65 [95% CI 3.09-7.00]), poor street lighting (OR 2.82 [95% CI 1.95-4.11]), lack of convenient places (OR 2.04 [95% CI 1.39-3.00]), unclean and untidy neighbourhood (OR 1.84 [95% CI 1.25-2.72]) and poor weather (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.11-2.33]) as barriers to PA, after adjusting for a set of confounders. Conclusions: Findings suggest that environmental barriers to PA are particularly salient to young females in urban Bangladesh. This study underscores the need for safe and convenient options for PA that are also female friendly.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available