Perception of built environmental factors and physical activity among adolescents in Nigeria

Abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding environmental factors related to adolescents’ physical activity can inform intervention for obesity control and prevention, but virtually no study has been conducted in the African region, where adolescents’ physical inactivity and chronic diseases rates are rising. This study assessed associations between perceived built environmental variables and adolescents’ physical activity (active transportation to school and leisure-time moderate-to- vigorous physical activity), and the moderating effects of neighborhood-level income on association between environmental variables and physical activity among Nigerian boys and girls.MethodsParticipants were 1006 adolescents (12–19 years, 50.4% girls) randomly selected from 11 secondary schools in Maiduguri city, Nigeria. Physical activity and perceptions of environmental characteristics were assessed by validated self-report questionnaires. Separate gender-based, hierarchical multiple moderated linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between the environmental perceptions and physical activity variables (active transportation and leisure-time MVPA; dependent variables), as well as the moderating effects of neighborhood-level income.ResultsOnly in boys were direct associations and interaction effect of neighborhood-level income found. Access to destinations was positively associated with active transportation to school (β = 0.18; CI = 0.67, 2.24); while residential density (β = 0.10; CI = 0.01, 1.74) and availability/quality of infrastructures (β = 0.14; CI = 0.49, 2.68) were positively associated with leisure-time MVPA. Also, neighborhood-level income moderated the association between perceived safety and leisure-time MVPA, with more perceived safety related to less MVPA (β = -0.16; CI = -0.01, -0.70) in boys living in high SES neighborhood but marginally related to more MVPA (β = 0.11; CI = -0.04, 2.88, p = 0.06) in boys living in low SES neighborhood.ConclusionsFew environmental attributes were associated with adolescents’ physical activity in Nigeria. Future studies are needed to determine the multidimensional correlates of physical activity that may be relevant for both adolescents’ boys and girls in Nigeria.

“Can we walk?” Environmental supports for physical activity in India

“…46 Similar findings have been documented in other studies from Latin America and Africa where PA is constrained, rather than promoted, by high levels of land use mix and density. 71,103,104 In many LMICs, areas of high density include a large number of individuals or households living together which results in overcrowding. These neighborhoods are often unattractive, with a lack of space for parks, green spaces, and pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks which hinder residents' PA. 71 Data from this study are insufficient to test this hypothesis.…”

Factors Influencing Leisure Time Physical Activity of Children

“…These two groups of factors are related; higher levels of Extraversion, Conscientiousness my help people to overcome environment barriers to leisure time physical activity (Gallagher et al, 2013). A. L. Oyeyemi et al (2014) suggest that the influence of the physical environment on physical activity levels of adolescents might not be direct and could be mediated by other levels of control including psychosocial factors (e.g., self-efficacy, social support and perceived benefits and barriers).…”

The linkage between the perception of neighbourhood and physical activity in Guangzhou, China: using street view imagery with deep learning techniques

“…Previous epidemiological studies have mainly used two approaches to assess different aspects of neighbourhood environments: questionnaires completed by participants [16,30,[38][39][40][41][42][43] and systematic field observation conducted by trained auditors [44][45][46]. Questionnaire surveys, the most widely used method to assess respondents' perception of the neighbourhood environment, often use Likert scales (e.g., rating the level of safety on a five-point scale) [28,31,47] or open-ended questions (e.g., "How do you feel about the neighbourhood?")…”