Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Im April diskutierten die Herz-Kreislauf-Spezialisten aus der ganzen Welt auf dem  Kongress des American College of Cardiology (ACC) u.a. neue Therapieansätze bei akutem Myokardinfarkt, koronarer Herzerkrankung, kardiogenem Schock oder Aortenklappenstenose. In unserem Kongress-Dossier haben wir für Sie Berichte über die „Late-Breaking Trials“ und andere wichtige Studien zusammengestellt. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 1/2015

01.01.2015 | Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy (W Rosamond, Section Editor)

Measuring Physical Activity in Outdoor Community Recreational Environments: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

verfasst von: Semra A. Aytur, Sydney A. Jones, Michelle Stransky, Kelly R. Evenson

Erschienen in: Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) are major contributors to escalating health care costs in the USA. Physical activity is an important protective factor against CVD, and the National Prevention Strategy recognizes active living (defined as a way of life that integrates physical activity into everyday routines) as a priority for improving the nation’s health. This paper focuses on developing more inclusive measures of physical activity in outdoor community recreational environments, specifically parks and trails, to enhance their usability for at-risk populations such as persons with mobility limitations. We develop an integrated conceptual framework for measuring physical activity in outdoor community recreational environments, describe examples of evidence-based tools for measuring physical activity in these settings, and discuss strategies to improve measurement of physical activity for persons with mobility limitations. Addressing these measurement issues is critically important to making progress towards national CVD goals pertaining to active community environments.
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
4.
Frank L et al. Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):305–11.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Huston SL et al. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):58–69.PubMedCrossRef
6.
King WC et al. The relationship between convenience of destinations and walking levels in older women. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):74–82.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Giles-Corti B et al. Environmental and lifestyle factors associated with overweight and obesity in Perth. Australia Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):93–102.CrossRef
8.
Tilt J, Unfried T, Roca B. Using objective and subjective measures of neighborhood greenness and accessible destinations for understanding walking trips and BMI in Seattle. Washington Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):371–9.CrossRef
9.
Coombes E, Jones A, Hillsdon M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(6):816–22.PubMedCrossRef
10.
de Vries SI et al. Determinants of activity-friendly neighborhoods for children: results from the SPACE study. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(4 Suppl):312–6.PubMedCrossRef
11.•
Evenson K. Associations of adult physical activity with perceived safety and police recorded crime measures: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Intl J Behavior Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:46. Available at http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/9/1/146 . This cross-sectional study found that walking was independently associated with both perceived neighborhood safety (questionnaire reported) and police-reported crime (including total and outdoor incivilities, criminal offenses, homicides) among participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis living in Chicago. Lower police-reported outdoor crime and higher perceived safety were associated with walking for transportation, and lower perceived violence was associated with leisure walking. The findings suggest that both perceived and objective measures of safety should be considered when assessing the effect of neighborhood safety on physical activity. This is one of the most comprehensive objective measures of neighborhood safety in the physical activity literature to date, allowing evaluation specifically of crimes occurring outdoors.CrossRef
12.
Heath GW et al. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:S55.
13.
Aytur SA et al. Urban containment policies and physical activity: a time-series analysis of metropolitan areas, 1990–2002. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(4):320–32.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
16.••
Evenson KR. Assessing the contribution of parks to physical activity using global positioning system and accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):7.CrossRef
17.
18.
Maller C, et al. Healthy parks healthy people: the health benefits of contact with nature in a park context. 2008. 41.
19.
Thompson C et al. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012;105(3):221–9.CrossRef
20.
Barton J, Griffin M, Pretty J. Exercise-, nature- and socially interactive-based initiatives improve mood and self-esteem in the clinical population. Perspect Public Health. 2012;32(2):89–96.CrossRef
21.
Riley BB et al. A conceptual framework for improving the accessibility of fitness and recreation facilities for people with disabilities. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(1):158–68.PubMed
22.
Go AS et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–e292.PubMedCrossRef
23.•
Autenrieth CS. Association between physical activity and risk of stroke subtypes: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Neuroepidemiology. 2013;40(2):109–16. This prospective longitudinal study found a reduced risk of stroke associated with higher physical activity at baseline (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.78 for total stroke). This relationship was relatively consistent across stroke subtypes (ischemic, lacunar, cardioembolic, and nonlacunar strokes) after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, and smoking. The association was strongest among males and African-Americans.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Kurian AK, Cardarelli KM. Racial and ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review. Ethn Dis. 2007;17(1):143–52.PubMed
26.
Mensah GA et al. State of disparities in cardiovascular health in the United States. Circulation. 2005;111(10):1233–41.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Cooper R et al. Trends and disparities in coronary heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in the United States findings of the national conference on cardiovascular disease prevention. Circulation. 2000;102(25):3137–47.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Kirchner CE, Gerber E, Smith B. Designed to deter. Community barriers to physical activity for people with visual or motor impairments. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(4):349–52.PubMedCrossRef
29.
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Peurto Rico Community Survey 2012 Subject Definitions. 2012
30.
US Census Bureau, American FactFinder. Disability Characteristics 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 2010
31.
32.
33.
Vaughan KB et al. Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: an environmental justice investigation. Ann Behav Med. 2013;45 Suppl 1:S28–38.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Rimmer JH. Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(5):419–25.PubMedCrossRef
35.••
Sallis JF. Measuring physical activity environments: a brief history. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(4):S86–92. This historical overview of methods for assessing the environments in which people engage in physical activity summarizes the contribution of three fields (health, planning, and leisure studies) to the development of contemporary measures. The emphasis of tools from each field, and corresponding strengths and weaknesses are described, creating a framework within which to understand current methods for studying physical activity environments.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
36.••
Gray JA, Zimmerman J, Rimmer J. Built environment instruments for walkability, bikeability, and recreation: disability and universal design relevant. Disabil Health J. 2012;5(2):87–101. This comprehensive review evaluated 95 instruments measuring walkability, bikeability, and recreation from a disability perspective. Only one-third of the tools included disability-specific items and only some universal design principles were present in even 20–33% of instruments. Findings highlight the need for inclusion of specific disability populations, universal design principles, and rigorous psychometric evaluation in development and revision of measures of the built environment. PubMedCrossRef
37.
Rimmer JH, Riley B, Rubin S. A new measure for assessing the physical activity behaviors of persons with disabilities and chronic health conditions: the physical activity and disability survey. Am J Health Promot. 2001;16(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Reichard A, Stolzle H, Fox M. Health disparities among adults with physical disabilities or cognitive limitations compared to individuals with no disabilities in the United States. Disabil Health J. 2011;4(2):59–67.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Iwarsson S, Stahl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(2):57–66.PubMed
40.
Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care. 1981;19(2):127–40.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Butler EB, Ambs A, Reedy J, Bowles HI, Measures GIS. Identifying GIS measures of the physical activity built environment through a review of the literature. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(S1):S91–7.PubMed
42.
Rimmer JH, Gray JA, Zimmerman JL. Universal Design & Health Promotion (UDHP) Webinar. 2009, CDC Disability Branch.
43.
White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. Increasing physical activity, in Solving the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. 2010. p. 65–85.
44.••
Rimmer JH, Wang W. Barriers associated with exercise and community access for individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(2):315–22. This cross-sectional survey of stroke survivors identified major barriers to exercise among members of this population subgroup with high rates of disability. Four of the five most common barriers (cost of the program, lack of awareness of a fitness center in the area, no means of transportation to a fitness center, and no knowledge of where to exercise) were reported by 44% to 60% of respondents and were directly related to the availability and accessibility of community resources for physical activity.PubMedCrossRef
45.•
Cohen DA. Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2317–25. This cross sectional study examined whether parks located in low, medium and high poverty areas were used equally. Using a notably comprehensive design that included direct observation of park users (SOPARC), interviews with park users and a random sample of nearby residents, and documentation of park management and programing in neighborhood parks, the authors found that parks in high-poverty areas were used least. Controlling for size, staffing, and programming differences did not alter the pattern of results. However, higher park use was associated with having a larger park staff, and more organized and supervised programs suggesting that these might be effective strategies to increase park use in high-poverty areas.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
Besenyi GM et al. Demographic variations in observed energy expenditure across park activity areas. Prev Med. 2013;56(1):79–81.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1451–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
49.••
Rosenberg DE. Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. Gerontologist. 2013;53(2):268–79. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 35 adults over age 50 who used an assistive mobility devices (e.g., canes, walkers, and wheelchairs) and lived in King County,WA. Additionally, participants wore Global Positioning Systems(GPS) devices for 3 days prior to the interview. The GPS maps were used as prompts during the interview process. Key themes pertaining to barriers and facilitators were identified, such as ramp availability and quality, sidewalk availability and quality, hills, aesthetics, lighting, availability of resting places and shelters, paved or smooth paths, and safety.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
50.
Froehlich A, Nary D, White G. Identifying barriers to participation in physical activity for women with disabilities. SCI Psychosoc Process. 2002;15(1):21–9.
51.
Mowen A. Parks, playgrounds and active living. Active Living Research, in Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton NJ. 2010
52.
Coen SE, Ross NA. Exploring the material basis for health: characteristics of parks in Montreal neighborhoods with contrasting health outcomes. Health Place. 2006;12(4):361–71.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Floyd MF et al. Environmental and social correlates of physical activity in neighborhood parks: an observational study in Tampa and Chicago. Leis Sci. 2008;30(4):360–75.CrossRef
54.
Christensen KM, Holt JM, Wilson JF. Effects of perceived neighborhood characteristics and use of community facilities on physical activity of adults with and without disabilities. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(5):A105.PubMedCentralPubMed
55.
McGinn AP et al. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health. 2007;84(2):162–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
56.
Van Dyck D et al. Environmental perceptions as mediators of the relationship between the objective built environment and walking among socio-economically disadvantaged women. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:108.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
57.
58.
Cohen DA et al. New recreational facilities for the young and the old in Los Angeles: policy and programming implications. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30:S248–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
59.
Loukaitou-Sideris A, Sideris A. What brings children to the park? Analysis and measurement of the variables affecting Children’s use of parks. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76(1):89–107.CrossRef
60.
Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health—a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):159–68.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Aytur S, et al. Creating safe neighborhoods for obesity prevention: perceptions of urban youth, in Obesity interventions in underserved US populations: evidence and directions, V. Brennan, S. Kumanyika, and R. Zamrana, Editors. 2014, Johns Hopkins University: In Press.
62.
Soori H. Children’s risk perception and parents’ views on levels of risk that children attach to outdoor activities. Saudi Med J. 2000;21(5):455–60.PubMed
63.
Spivock M, Gauvin L, Brodeur JM. Neighborhood-level active living buoys for individuals with physical disabilities. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(3):224–30.PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
Calder AM, Mulligan HF. Measurement properties of instruments that assess inclusive access to fitness and recreational sports centers: a systematic review. Disabil Health J. 2014;7(1):26–35.PubMedCrossRef
66.••
Brownson R. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(S):S99–S123. In this study, three categories of built environment measures for physical activity were reviewed: (1) perceived measures collected through the use of interviews, surveys, or self-administered questionnaires; (2) observational measures collected through systematic methods such as audits and checklists; and (3) Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based measures (archival data sets that are often layered and analyzed with spatial software.) The authors underscore the need for further research to improve the quality of various measures.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
67.
Wang C, Burris MA. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24(3):369–87.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Brown G, Schebella MF, Weber D. Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;121:34–44.CrossRef
69.
Dennis SF et al. Participatory photo mapping (PPM): exploring an integrated method for health and place research with young people. Health Place. 2009;15(2):466–73.PubMedCrossRef
70.
71.
Blossom J, Oreskovic N. Using GIS to analyze where children get physical activity in the city, in ESRI Health GIS Conference. 2013: Cambridge, MA.
72.
Dunton GF et al. Locations of joint physical activity in parent–child pairs based on accelerometer and GPS monitoring. Ann Behav Med. 2013;45 Suppl 1:S162–72.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Israel B et al. Critical issues in developing and following community-based participatory research principles. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003. p. 53–76.
74.
75.
76.
Cerin E et al. Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1682–91.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Evenson K, et al. Girls’ perception of physical environmental factors and transportation access: reliability and association with physical activity and active transport to school. Intl J Behavioral Nutr Physical Activity, 2006. 3(28): p. Accessed at www.​ijbnpa.​org/​content/​3/​1/​28.
78.
Rimmer J, et al. Q-PAT, the health empowerment zone environmental assessment tool, in The health disparities and social justic conference 2009: a focus on families. 2009, Depaul University: Chicago, IL.
79.
Bedimo-Rung A et al. Development of a direct observation instrument to measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2006;2 Suppl 1:S176–89.
80.
McKenzie T et al. System for observing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3 Suppl 1:S208–22.PubMed
81.
Abercrombie LC et al. Income and racial disparities in access to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(1):9–15.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Zhang X, Lu H, Holt JB. Modeling spatial accessibility to parks: a national study. Int J Health Geogr, 2011. 10: p. 31.
83.
Wolch J, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography. 2005;26(1):4–35.CrossRef
84.
Rigolon A, Flohr TL. Access to parks for youth as an environmental justice issue: access inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings. 2014;4:64–94.CrossRef
85.
Miyake KK et al. Not just a walk in the park: methodological improvements for determining environmental justice implications of park access in New York city for the promotion of physical activity. Cities Environ. 2010;3(1):1–17.PubMedCentralPubMed
86.
Evenson K, Herring A, Huston S. Evaluating change in physical activity with the building of a multi-use trail. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S2):177–85.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Rundle A et al. Associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(4):262–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
88.
Macintyre S, Macdonald A, Ellaway A. Lack of agreement between measured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. . International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008. 5(26).
89.
Diez Roux A et al. Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in a sample of adults. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):493–9.PubMedCrossRef
90.
Gray DB et al. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(6):434–57.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Troped P et al. Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the path environment audit tool (PEAT). J Phys Act Health. 2006;3 Suppl 1:S158–75.
92.
Coutts C et al. County-level effects of green space access on physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(2):232–40.PubMed
93.
Kansas University Center for Independent Living (KUCIL).The Community Health Environment Checklist (CHEC) and Community Accessibility Maps. KUCIL, Editor. 2014, Kansas University.
94.
Evenson K et al. Measurement properties of a park use questionnaire. Env Behavior. 2013;45(4):526–47.CrossRef
95.
Payne L et al. Local park use and personal health among older adults: an exploratory study. J Park Recreat Adm. 2005;23(2):1–20.
96.
Walker JT et al. Physical activity in the park setting (PA-PS) questionnaire: reliability in a California statewide sample. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6 Suppl 1:S97–S104.PubMed
97.
98.
Whiteneck GG et al. Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(8):1324–35.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Kaczynski AT, Stanis SA, Besenyi GM. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(3):242–9.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Rimmer J et al. Development and validation of AIMFREE: accessibility instruments measuring fitness and recreation environments. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(18):1087–95.PubMedCrossRef
101.
Kealey M. Engaging older adults to be more active where they live: audit tool development, in Conference for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control. 2005: Atlanta, GA.
102.
103.
Lee R, et al. The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities, and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. Intl J Behavior Nutr Physical Activity, 2005. 2: p. 13 pages; access at http://​www.​ijbnpa.​org/​content/​2/​1/​13.
104.
Saelens B et al. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(S1):S190–207.
105.
Hillsdon M et al. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health. 2006;120(12):1127–32.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Troped PJ et al. Reliability of a brief intercept survey for trail use behaviors. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):775–80.PubMed
107.
108.
Starnes HA et al. Trails and physical activity: a review. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(8):1160–74.PubMed
109.
110.
Garber C, Blissmer B, Deschenes M. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–59.PubMedCrossRef
111.
112.
Ainsworth BE et al. 2011 compendium of physical activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1575–81.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Lee M et al. Determining metabolic equivalent values of physical activities for persons with paraplegia. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(4):336–43.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Collins E, Gater D, Kiratli J, et al. Energy cost of physical activities in persons with spinal cord injury. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise. 2010:691–97. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise., 2010: p. 691–97.
115.
Ginis KA, Latimer AE, Hicks AL, Craven B. Development and evaluation of an activity measure for people with spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(7):1099–111.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Latimer AE, Martin Ginis KA, Hicks AL, Craven BC. Validation of the physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury (PARA-SCI). Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:208–16.PubMedCrossRef
117.
van den Berg-Emons RJ, L’Ortye AA, Buffart LM, Nieuwenhuijsen C, et al. Validation of the physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:923–8.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Washburn RA, Zhu W, McAuley E, Frogley M, Figoni SF. The physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities: development and evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:193–200.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Kayes NM et al. The physical activity and disability survey—revised (PADS-R): an evaluation of a measure of physical activity in people with chronic neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(6):534–43.PubMedCrossRef
120.
Sasidharan V, McKenzie T, Chavez D. System for observing play and recreation in natural areas (SOPARNA). Editor: Active Living Research; 2014.
121.
Lee M et al. Estimating MET values using the ratio of HR for persons with paraplegia. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(5):985–90.PubMedCrossRef
122.
123.
National Park Service, Universal Design: applying the principles in park settings N.P. Service, Editor. 2008.
124.
Maroko AR, Maantay J, Sohler N, et al. The complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York City: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
125.
Mair J. Milligan. Stanford Social Innovation Review: K. Q&A Roundtable on Impact Investing; 2012.
126.
Fleming D. Achieving individual health through community investment: a perspective from king county. Washington: R.C.t.B.a.H. America, Editor; 2013.
127.
Shinew KJ, Stodolska M, Roman CG, Yahner J. Crime, physical activity and outdoor recreation among Latino adolescents in Chicago. Prev Med. 2013;57(5):541–4.PubMedCrossRef
128.
Ries AV, Gittelsohn J, Voorhees CC, Roche KM, Clifton KJ, Astone NM. The environment and urban adolescents’ use of recreational facilities for physical activity: a qualitative study. Am J Health Promot. 2008;23(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRef
129.
130.
Maas J et al. Green space, urbanity, and health. J Epid Comm Health. 2006;60:587–92.CrossRef
131.
Giles-Corti B, Broomhall M, Knuiman M, et al. Increasing walking. How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2S2):169–76.
Metadaten
Titel
Measuring Physical Activity in Outdoor Community Recreational Environments: Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice
verfasst von
Semra A. Aytur
Sydney A. Jones
Michelle Stransky
Kelly R. Evenson
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 1932-9520
Elektronische ISSN: 1932-9563
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-014-0423-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Race + Ethnicity Disparities (K Watson, Section Editor)

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Heart Failure Etiology, Prognosis, and Management

Heart Failure Prevention (W Tang, Section Editor)

Prevention of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Obesity + Diet (G Rao, Section Editor)

Assessment of Obesity and Cardiovascular Risk in South Asians

Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy (W Rosamond, Section Editor)

Electronic Medical Records and Their Use in Health Promotion and Population Research of Cardiovascular Disease

Physical Activity (D Warburton, Section Editor)

An International Perspective on Improving the Quality and Potential of Behavioral Clinical Trials

Cardiovascular Risk Health Policy (W Rosamond, Section Editor)

Big Data: What Is It and What Does It Mean for Cardiovascular Research and Prevention Policy

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Semaglutid bei Herzinsuffizienz: Wie erklärt sich die Wirksamkeit?

17.05.2024 Herzinsuffizienz Nachrichten

Bei adipösen Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz des HFpEF-Phänotyps ist Semaglutid von symptomatischem Nutzen. Resultiert dieser Benefit allein aus der Gewichtsreduktion oder auch aus spezifischen Effekten auf die Herzinsuffizienz-Pathogenese? Eine neue Analyse gibt Aufschluss.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise