3.8 Article

Pedometer-determined physical activity among multiethnic low-income housing residents

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 768-773

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000210200.87328.3f

关键词

race/ethnicity; exercise; socioeconomic status; minority; pedometers

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA098864-05, R01 CA098864-01A1, R01 CA098864, R01 CA098864-02S1, R01 CA098864-04S1, R01 CA098864-03S1, 5R01CA098864-02S1, R01 CA098864-04, R01 CA098864-03, 5R01CA098864-02, R01 CA098864-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We sought to characterize pedometer-determined physical activity among a predominantly racial and ethnic minority sample of adults residing in low-income housing. Methods: Data were collected from 433 participants at baseline in a randomized colon cancer prevention intervention trial conducted within low-income housing communities. Using random effects models to control for clustering within housing sites, we examined variation in daily steps by several sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Participants recorded a mean of 5326 (+/- 3871 SD) daily steps over a 5-d sampling period. Significantly lower levels of pedometer-determined physical activity were found among older-aged participants (P < 0.0001), women (P = 0.02), those who were overweight and obese (P = 0.03), those reporting no weekly exercise (P = 0.04), as well as among nonworking individuals (P < 0.0001). No significant differences were found by education or income. In multivariable analyses, age, gender, body mass index, and employment status remained significantly associated with steps. Conclusions: These findings suggest a high prevalence of physical inactivity among low-income housing residents. These data, derived from a well-characterized sample, provide useful estimates for the investigation of pedometers as measures of total accumulated physical activity among lower-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

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

3.8
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