Sedentary time and perceived neighborhood environment in adolescents aged 12-17 years

Sarabia, Tais Taiana; Reis, Mariana Silva dos; Gonçalves, Priscila Bezerra; Reis, Rodrigo Siqueira

doi:10.5007/1980-0037.2018v20n5p456

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. bras. cineantropom. desempenho hum 20 (5) • Sep-Oct 2018 • https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2018v20n5p456 copy

Sedentary time and perceived neighborhood environment in adolescents aged 12-17 years

Tempo sedentário e ambiente percebido sobre o bairro em adolescentes de 12 a 17 anos

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The environment around the residence could contribute to attenuate or increase time spent in sedentary activities, and in low energy expenditure activities (1.5 METS) in adolescents. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between sedentary time and perceived neighborhood environment in adolescents aged 12-17 years living in southern Brazil. This was an observational cross-sectional study conducted from August 2013 to May 2014, with a sample of adolescents (12-17 years), recruited from 32 census tracts in Curitiba, Brazil. All census tracts were selected according to walkability and income characteristics. Perceived environment was assessed through the NEWS-Y questionnaire, and sedentary time along seven days was obtained through accelerometers (GT1M, GT3x and GT3x+). Linear regression models were used to test the associations, and included age, nutritional status, socioeconomic level and education level as confounding variables. All analyses were performed considering p-value <0.05 through SPSS software 20.0. The analytical sample included 364 adolescents (girls=50.5%; mean age=14.7, SD=1.7) with valid accelerometry data, showing on 489.6 minutes/day (SD=99.5) spent in sedentary time activities. After adjusting for confounding variables, only the perception of places for walking and cycling remained associated with sedentary time for both boys (B=-23.402, p=0.016) and girls (B=-15.572; p=0.079). Perception of places for walking and cycling has an inverse relationship with sedentary time among adolescents living in places with extremes of walkability and income.

Key words
Adolescent; Urban area; Sedentary lifestyle

Variables		Total	Boys (n=180)	Girls (n=184)	p-value
Age years, mean (SD)		14.1	14.1 (1.7)	14.1 (1.7)	0.859
Nutritional status^¶, n (%)
	Low	31 (9.0)	17 (9.9)	14 (8.1)	0.544
	Adequate	240 (69.6)	122 (70.9)	118 (68.2)
	Overweight / Obesity	74 (21.4)	33 (19.2)	41 (23.7)
SES, n (%)
	Low (C, D and E)	135 (7.1)	68 (37.8)	67 (36.4)	0.318
	Intermediate (B1 and B2)	201 (55.2)	102 (56.7)	99 (53.8)
	High (A1 and A2)	28 (7.7)	10 (5.6)	18 (9.8)
Parental schooling, n (%)
	Up to elementary school	107 (29.5)	52 (28.9)	55 (30.1)	0.730
	Complete high school	144 (39.7)	75 (41.7)	69 (37.7)
	Complete higher education	112 (30.9)	53 (29.4)	59 (32.2)
	Sedentary time, min / day, mean (SD)	489.6 (99.5)	482.3 (104.1)	494.6 (92.7)	0.430
Perception of the environment score, mean (SD)
	Land use mix	3.0 (0.5)	3.0 (0.5)	2.9 (0.6)	0.030
	Residential density	233.6 (76.4)	232.8 (74.9)	234.2 (78.2)	0.032
	Access to services	3.1 (0.4)	3.1 (0.4)	3.1 (0.5)	0.715
	Street connectivity	3.2 (0.6)	3.2 (0.6)	3.2 (0.6)	0.352
	Places for walking and cycling	2.6 (0.7)	2.6 (0.7)	2.6 (0.7)	0.957
	Aesthetics	2.7 (0.7)	2.7 (0.7)	2.7 (0.7)	0.615
	Perception of safety	2.6 (0.5)	2.6 (0.5)	2.5 (0.6)	0.112
	Crime	2.7 (0.7)	2.8 (0.6)	2.5 (0.7)	<0.001
	Satisfaction with the neighborhood	0.6 (0.2)	0.6 (0.2)	0.6 (0.2)	0.002

Independent variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Independent variables	B (SE)	p-value	B (SE)	p-value	B (SE)	p-value
(constant)					339.813 (54.329)	0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
Age (years)	23.508 (4.305)	<0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-	-	20.268 (4.164)	0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
SES (ref=Low)
Intermediate	123.698 (32.601)	0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-	-	90.465 (32.055)	0.005^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
High	5.596 (15.662)	0.721	-	-	-	-
Nutritional status (ref = low weight)
Adequate	11.748 (16.590)	0.480	-	-	-	-
Overweight / Obesity	14.2654 (20.034)	0.465	-	-	-	-
Parental schooling (ref=elementary school)
High school	-17.686 (15.692)	0.261	-	-	-	-
Higher education	62.069 (16.386)	<0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-	-	25.923 (11.340)	0.023^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
Environment domains
Land use mix	-6.323 (14.537)	0.664	-21.456 (13.429)	0.112	-	-
Residential density	-0.004 (0.104)	0.971	-0.043 (0.094)	0.645
Access to Services	-50.337 (20.163)	0.013^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-40.181 (18.535)	0.032^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-32.5671 (18.531)	0.081
Street connectivity	-20.327 (13.042)	0.121	-3.594 (12.291)	0.770
Places for walking and cycling	-22.194 (10.474)	0.035^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-27.727 (9.371)	0.004^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-23.402 (9.585)	0.016^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
Aesthetics	-14.460 (11.098)	0.195	-17.619 (10.030)	0.081	-	-
Perception of safety	-13.720 (15.068)	0.364	-16.150 (13.613)	0.237	-	-
Crime	-9.967 (12.346)	0.938	-3.752 (11.268)	0.740	-	-
Satisfaction with the neighborhood	-15.977 (40.739)	0.695	-2.885 (32.448)	0.929	-	-

Independent variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Independent variables	B (SE)	p-value	B (SE)	p-value	B (SE)	p-value
(constant)					339.813 (54.329)	0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
Age (years)	18.494 (3.867)	<0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-	-	20.648 (3.993)	0.001^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
SES (ref=Low)
Intermediate	-0.271 (23.581)	0.991	-	-	-	-
High	23.7113 (13.941)	0.091	-	-	-	-
Nutritional status (ref = low weight)
Adequate	3.720 (14.604)	0.799	-	-	-	-
Overweight / Obesity	8.206 (16.823)	0.626	-	-	-	-
Parental schooling (ref=elementary school)
High school	4.670 (14.466)	0.747	-	-	-	-
Higher education	21.138 (14.928)	0.158	-	-	-	-
Environment domains
Land use mix	-5.219 (12.186)	0.669	-23.412 (11.931)	0.051^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-20.574 (11.969)	0.087
Residential density	-0.070 (0.089)	0.432	-0.087 (0.085)	0.303
Access to Services	-8.134 (14.517)	0.576	-14.136 (13.748)	0.305	-	-
Street connectivity	-0.687 (11.637)	0.953	-1.129 (11.005)	0.918
Places for walking and cycling	-16.870 (9.303)	0.071	-17.603 (8.776)	0.046^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.	-15.572 (8.808)	0.079^* * p <0.05; Model 1 = Bivariate analysis; Model 2 = Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounding variables with p <0.05 in model 1; Model 3 = Multivariate analysis with environment domains with p <0.05 in model 2 adjusted for confounding variables.
Aesthetics	-11.693 (9.873)	0.238	-10.941 (9.333)	0.243	-	-
Perception of safety	-2.387 (12.234)	0.846	-4.174 (11.641)	0.720	-	-
Crime	-7.939 (9.704)	0.414	-8.036 (9.169)	0.382	-	-
Satisfaction with the neighborhood	-3.267 (33.358)	0.922	-5.699 (31.582)	0.857	-	-

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário Trindade, Centro de Desportos - RBCDH, Zip postal: 88040-900 - Florianópolis, SC. Brasil, Fone/fax : (55 48) 3721-8562/(55 48) 3721-6348 - Florianópolis - SC - Brazil
E-mail: rbcdh@contato.ufsc.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] CORRESPONDING AUTHORTais Taiana Sarabia. Grupo de Pesquisa em Atividade Física e Qualidade de Vida (GPAQ). Rua Imaculada Conceição, 1155, Prado Velho, 80215-901. Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. E-mail: tais.1986@hotmail.com