The neighborhood social environment and physical activity: a systematic scoping review

Abstract

BackgroundInvestigating the association of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity is complex. A systematic scoping review was performed to (1) provide an inventory of studies assessing the influence of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity since 2006; (2) describe methodologies employed; and (3) formulate recommendations for the field.MethodsTwo databases were searched using terms related to ‘physical activity,’ ‘neighborhood,’ and ‘social environment’ in January 2017. Eligibility criteria included: 1) physical activity as an outcome; 2) neighborhood social environment as a predictor; 3) healthy population (without diagnosed clinical condition or special population); 4) observational or experimental design. Of 1352 studies identified, 181 were included. Textual data relevant to the social environment measurement and analysis were extracted from each article into qualitative software (MAXQDA) and coded to identify social environmental constructs, measurement methods, level of measurement (individual vs. aggregated to neighborhood), and whether authors explicitly recognized the construct as the social environment. The following measures were generated for each construct: number of unique measurements; % of times measured at an aggregate level; % of times authors referred to the construct as the social environment. Social environmental constructs were then grouped into larger descriptive dimensions.Results/findingsFifty-nine social environmental constructs were identified and grouped into 9 dimensions: Crime & Safety (n = 133 studies; included in 73% of studies); Economic & Social Disadvantage (n = 55, 33%); Social Cohesion & Capital (n = 47, 26%); Social Relationships (n = 22, 12%); Social Environment (n = 16, 9%); Disorder & Incivilities (n = 15, 8%); Sense of Place/Belonging (n = 8, 4%); Discrimination/Segregation (n = 3, 2%); Civic Participation & Engagement (n = 2, 1%). Across all articles, the social environment was measured using 176 different methods, was measured at an aggregate-level 38% of the time, and referred to as the social environment 23% of the time.ConclusionsInconsistent terminology, definitions, and measurement of the social environment and the lack of explicit language identifying constructs as the social environment make it challenging to compare results across studies and draw conclusions. Improvements are needed to increase our understanding of social environmental correlates and/or determinants of physical activity and facilitate cross-disciplinary conversations necessary to effectively intervene to promote physical activity.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017059580.

Environmental Barriers as a Determining Factor of Physical Activity

“…It seems to be demonstrated that the accessibility and availability of spaces and the aspects related to the neighborhood environment influence the level of physical activity. Other studies also showed the influence of the neighborhood on physical activity levels [41].…”

Urban Environment and Health: A Cross-Sectional Study of the Influence of Environmental Quality and Physical Activity on Blood Pressure

“…Differences in environmental factors, physical activity levels and genetic factors may produce a variability in the blood pressure response to physical activity at the population level [ 40 ]. A recent systematic scoping review of the neighborhood social and built environment and physical activity highlighted the need for further studies in which environmental factors would be key influencers of physical activity [ 41 , 42 ]. There is some indication that the investigation of the context-specific built environment associations and improving neighborhood walkability and the quality of parks may have a positive impact on the policy change process and may increase physical activity [ 43 , 44 , 45 ].…”

A national examination of neighborhood socio-economic disparities in built environment correlates of youth physical activity

“…However, evidence is limited and future studies are needed including data on social ties to examine this hypothesis. It is also possible that other unmeasured geospatial and social environmental factors are confounding this effect, such as neighborhood social capital ( Kepper et al, 2019 ). Neighborhoods are complex and dynamic environments that may be characterized as both low SES and high social capital, where the benefits of social capital may buffer the negative association between low SES and MVPA ( Loh et al, 2019 , Cradock et al, 2009 , Elgar et al, 2010 ).…”