4.3 Article

Quality of Public Physical Activity Resources and its Association with Frequency of Use in Two Low-Income Neighborhoods in Brazil

期刊

LEISURE SCIENCES
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 881-905

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1714518

关键词

built environment; leisure-time physical activity; neighborhood attributes; physical activity resources

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparoa Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study in two low income neighborhoods in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, reveals that the quality and frequency of use of physical activity resources (PARs) are both very low. However, PARs with higher quality attract more users. The study also finds an interaction between sex, age, and PARs use, with females and older adults showing lower participation rates. Homicide rates in the vicinity of PARs do not impact the usage. Therefore, attention should be given to the design and maintenance of these spaces in order to promote higher levels of leisure-time physical activity.
This cross-sectional study reports on the relationship between objectively-assessed quality of physical activity resources (PARs) and frequency of use within two low income neighborhoods in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Physical Activity Resource Assessment was used to assess the quality of all PARs of the two neighborhoods (n = 60). Frequency of use was assessed by direct observation. The quality of PARs and frequency of use was both found to be very low, but the higher quality PARs received higher number of users. An interaction between sex, age and use of PARs was found, with females and older adults significantly less present. Homicide rates in the vicinity of PARs did not contribute to lower levels of use. In conclusion, if we are to successfully promote higher levels of leisure-time physical activity among the population, care needs to be taken with the design and maintenance of these spaces.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据