4.5 Article

Predictors of discordance between perceived and objective neighborhood data

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 214-221

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.12.007

关键词

Epidemiological methods; Environment design; Obesity; Perception; Validity (epidemiology); Rural population; Urban population

资金

  1. Wisconsin Partnership Program PERC Award [PRJ56RV]
  2. National Institutes of Health [5UL 1RR025011]
  3. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute [1 RC2 HL101468]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Pathways by which the social and built environments affect health can be influenced by differences between perception and reality. This discordance is important for understanding health impacts of the built environment. This study examines associations between perceived and objective measures of 12 nonresidential destinations, as well as previously unexplored sociodemographic, lifestyle, neighborhood, and urbanicity predictors of discordance. Methods: Perceived neighborhood data were collected from participants of the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin, using a self-administered questionnaire. Objective data were collected using the Wisconsin Assessment of the Social and Built Environment, an audit-based instrument assessing built environment features around each participant's residence. Results: Overall, there was relatively high agreement, ranging from 50% for proximity to parks to more than 90% for golf courses. Higher education, positive neighborhood perceptions, and rurality were negatively associated with discordance. Associations between discordance and depression, disease status, and lifestyle factors appeared to be modified by urbanicity level. Conclusions: These data show perceived and objective neighborhood environment data are not interchangeable and the level of discordance is associated with or modified by individual and neighborhood factors, including the level of urbanicity. These results suggest that consideration should be given to including both types of measures in future studies. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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