|
|
Citation:
Casagrande SS, Whitt-Glover MC, Lancaster KJ, Odoms-Young AM, Gary TL. Built environment and health behaviors among African Americans: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Feb;36(2):174-81.
PubMed ID: 19135908
Study Design:
Systemic Review
Class:
M - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Research Design and Implementation Rating:
 POSITIVE: See Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
This article presents a summarization of the literature on the built environment and its association with physical activity, diet and obesity among African Americans.
Inclusion Criteria:
Eligible articles
- evaluated the objective or perceived physical built environment
- and the association with physical activity, dietary behaviors, and obesity or BMI
- study populations of ≥90% African Americans (or studies that included a subgroup analysis of African Americans).
- observational studies, including population and community surveys, cohort and corss-sectional studies
- published in English through July 2007
- studied African American adults ≥18 years.
Exclusion Criteria:
Articles were excluded that
- evaluated neighborhood socioeconomic status or racial segregation as environmental measures,
- evaluated only health status or mortality as outcomes,
- provided no subgroup analyses for Aftican Americans,
- or included <90% African Americans in populations where analyses for race/ethnic groups were combined.
- were intervention studies, design manuscripts and qualitative studies
Description of Study Protocol:
Search Strategy:
Published studies were identified by searching the PubMed databased from inception through July 21, 2007 using study key words.
Additional strategies included searching the bibliographies of eligible studies and searching the authors' personal databases for relevant articles on the built environment among African Americans.
Data Abstraction
Using a standard review form, full articles were independently serially reviewed by tow investigators. Data abstraction occurred between October 2007 and February 2008.
Statistical Analysis
Results of the review are summarized qualitatively in evidence tables that include major findings and conclusions. Odds ratios in the evidence tables were extracted directly from the tables of reviewed articles.
A meta-analysis was not performed since there were a small number of articles and a variety of methods were used in eligible articles.
Data Collection Summary:
Information abstracted from articles
- Built environments features related to physical activity and obesity
- Environmental features related to dietary intake
- Description of health behaviors, weight status and measures
- Associations between the built environment and physical activity
- Associations between the built environment and dietary intake
- Association between the built environment and obesity
Data Synthesis
Results of the review are summarized qualitatively in evidence tables that include major findings and conclusions. Odds ratios shown in the evidence tables were extracted direclty from the tables or reviewed articles. For comparison purposes, odds ratios were presented for similar exposures across studies. Any significant findings were also presented.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Number of articles included: 10
Number of articles identified: 2797 titles were identified from the initial search; 90 were deemed eligible for abstract review. Of these, 17 articles were eligible for full review and ten met all eligibility requirements.
Characteristics of articles on the built environment and health behaviors/obesity among African Americans
| Study |
Sample size |
Age (years) |
% female |
% African American |
Setting |
Location |
Recruitment and methods |
| Ainsworth (2003) |
917 |
20-59 (range) |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Metropolitan |
Sumter, Orangeburg counties, South Carolina |
Recruitment:RDD
Face-to-face interview
|
| Eyler (2003) |
4,122 |
34.5 (M) |
100.00 |
51.4 |
MIxed |
Multi-site: Universities: AL, SC, IL, MD, NC |
Recruitment:RDD
Face-to-face interview
|
| Rohm Young (2003) |
234 |
20-50 (range) |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Urban |
Baltimore, MD |
Recruitment: community organization
Face-to-face interview
|
| Sanderson (2003) |
567 |
20-50 (range |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Rural |
Green, Lowndes, Wilcox counties, AL |
Recruitment: RDD
|
| Wilbur (2003) |
399 |
20-50 (range) |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Urban |
Chicago, IL |
Recruitment through community
Face-to-face interview
|
| Hooker (2005) |
1,165 |
18-96 (range) |
56.5 |
40.9 |
Rural |
One county SC |
Recruitment: RDD
Questionnaire
|
| King (2000) |
2,912 |
≥40 |
100.0 |
25.6 |
Mixed |
National sample |
Telephone survey by ZIP code |
| Morland (2002) |
10,623 |
59.7 (M) |
55.9 |
225 |
Mixed |
Multi-site: Washington county MD; Forsyth county NC; Jackson city MS; Minneapolis MN |
Existing study
Objective environmental factors
|
| Wanko (2004) |
605 |
50 (M) |
56.0 |
89.9 |
Urban |
Atlanta GA |
Consecutive patients for first visit at diabetes clinic
Self-administered questionnaire
|
| Zenk |
266 |
48.6 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Urban |
Detroit MI |
Community survey |
 Summary of Results:
Key Findings
- Light traffic, the presence of sidewalks, and safety from crime were more often positively associated with physical activity, although associations were not consistent (OR range = 0.53-2.43).
- Perceived barriers to physical activity were associated with obesity.
- The presences of supermarkets and specialty stores was consistently positively associated with meeting fruit and vegetable guidelines.
Measures and outcomes of articles on built environment and health behaviors/obesity among African Americans (AA)
Study
|
Built environment features |
Measure
|
Behavior/weight status |
Measure |
Variable of interest |
Point est (95% CI) |
Conclusions |
| Ainsworth (2003) |
Traffice
Presence of sidewalks
Street lighting at night
Unattended dogs
|
Women and PA Survey |
Physical activity |
BRFSS |
Traffic, light, Sidewalks |
OR=1.53(1.00,2.34) |
Lighter traffice and the presence of sidewalks were associated with meeting PA recommendations; social factors also associated |
| Eyler (2003) |
Safety from crime
Places within walking distance
Places to exercise
|
|
|
|
Urban: safety from crime
Mixed: Sidewalks
|
Urban OR=1.27(0.51,3.15)
Mixed OR=1.07(0.70,1.65)
|
Physical environmental factors were not consistently related to PA |
| Rohm Young (2003) |
|
|
|
|
Traffic, light
Sidewalks
Safety from crime
|
Traffic OR=0.59(0.20,1.78)
Sidewalks OR=0.82(0.22,3.09)
Safety OR=0.93(0.41,2.11)
|
For any active vs inactive, physical environment factors not associated with PA level; social factors associated with PA |
| Sanderson (2003) |
|
|
|
|
Traffic, light
Sidewalks
Safety from crime
|
Traffic OR=0.53(0.22,1.32)
Sidewalks OR=0.95(0.52,1.76)
Safety OR=0.66(0.36,1.21)
|
For any active vs inactive, physical environment factors not associated with PA level; social facotrs associated with PA |
| Wilbur (2003) |
|
|
|
|
Traffic, light
Safety from crime
|
Traffic OR=1.05(0.34,3.27)
Safety OR=2.43(1.19,4.99)
|
Safety from crime was associated with any PA vs no activity |
| Hooker (2005) |
Traffic
Street light quality
Unattended dogs
Public facilities are safe
|
Adapted from Brownson and focus groups |
Physical activity |
BRFSS, 2001 |
Traffic, light
Safe from crime
|
Traffic OR=0.75(0.36,1.55)
Safe OR=1.32(0.73,2.38)
|
Among AA, no association between perceived neighborhood environment supports and PA |
| King (2000) |
Feel safe walking/jogging
Sidewalks
Heavy traffic
Hills
Street lights
Unattended dogs
Enjoyable scenery
HIgh crime
|
Women's determinants study |
Physical Activity |
BRFSS & NHIS |
Unattended dogs
Sidewalks
High crime
|
Unattended dogs OR=1.51(1.06,2.15)
Sidewalks OR=1.51(0.98,2.32)
High crime OR=0.91(0.58,1.42)
|
Among AA, unattended dogs was the only attribute associated with any PA vs no activity |
| Morland (2002) |
Food stores and food service places |
Geocoded addresses from local health and state departments |
Fruit and vegetable, total and saturated fat intake |
FFQ |
Fruits and vegetables
Total fat guideline
Saturated fat guideline
|
Fruits and vegetables OR=1.54(1.11,2.12)
Total fat OR=1.22(1.03,1.44)
Saturated fat OR=1.30(1.07,1.56)
|
The presence of supermarkets and the local food environment increased the likelihood of meeting dietary recommendations |
| Wanko (2004) |
Perceived barriers to PA |
Survey |
Obesity |
Objective height & weight |
BMI |
OR=1.04(1.01,1.06) |
A higher BMI increased patients likelihood of reporting an exercise barrier |
| Zenk (2005) |
Food stores |
Self-report |
Fruit and vegetable intake |
BRFSS, 2001 |
Supermarket
Specialty stores
|
Supermarket beta=1.22(0.33)
Specialty stores beta=2.37(1.06)
|
Shopping at supermarket or specialty store increased likelihood to meet fruit and vegetable recommendations |
Author Conclusion:
With relatively few studies in the literature focused on African Americans, the findings for features of the built environment that are associated with physical activity, diet , and obesity are inconclusive.
Reviewer Comments:
|
Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|
Relevance Questions
|
| |
1.
|
Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? |
Yes
|
| |
2.
|
Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? |
Yes
|
| |
3.
|
Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to nutrition or dietetics practice? |
Yes
|
| |
4.
|
Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? |
Yes
|
| |
|
Validity Questions
|
| |
1.
|
Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? |
Yes
|
| |
2.
|
Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? |
Yes
|
| |
3.
|
Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified and appropriate? Were selection methods unbiased? |
Yes
|
| |
4.
|
Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methods specified, appropriate, and reproducible? |
Yes
|
| |
5.
|
Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? |
Yes
|
| |
6.
|
Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? |
Yes
|
| |
7.
|
Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently across studies and groups? Was there appropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? |
Yes
|
| |
8.
|
Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels of significance and/or confidence intervals included? |
Yes
|
| |
9.
|
Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations of the review identified and discussed? |
Yes
|
| |
10.
|
Was bias due to the review’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? |
Yes
|
| |
| |
Copyright American Dietetic Association (ADA).
|
