4.7 Article

Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 39-47

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.026

关键词

environment; physical activity; walking; transport; children; perceptions; safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This study examined associations between perceptions of the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Methods. Children aged 5-6 years (n = 291) and 10-12 years (n = 919) were recruited from 19 Australian primary schools. Parents reported their child's usual walking or cycling to local destinations and their perceptions of their neighborhood. Ten- to twelve-year-olds were asked their perceptions of traffic, strangers, road safety and sporting venues, and their perceptions of their parent's views on these issues. Results. Five- to six-year-old boys whose parents believed there was heavy traffic in their area were 2.8 times more likely (95%CI = 1.1 - 6.8), and 5- to 6-year-old girls whose parents owned more than one car were 70% less likely (95%CI = 0.1-0.8), and whose parents believed that public transport was limited in their area were 60% less likely (95%CI = 0.2-0.9) than other children to walk or cycle at least three times per week. Parental belief that there were no lights or crossings was associated with walking or cycling among 10- to 12-year-old boys (OR 0.4, 95%CI = 0.2-0.7). Among older girls, parent's belief that their child needed to cross several roads to reach play areas (OR = 0.4, 95%CI = 0.2-0.8) and that there is limited public transport in their area (OR = 0.7, 95%CI = 0.4-0.97), and child's belief that there were no parks or sports grounds near home (OR = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.3-0.8) were associated with a lower likelihood of walking or cycling. Conclusion. Perceptions of the local neighborhood may influence children's physical activity. (C) 2003 American Health Foundation and 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

4.7
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