↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the cross-sectional association between outdoor recreational facilities and leisure-time physical activity: the role of usage and residential self-selection

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the cross-sectional association between outdoor recreational facilities and leisure-time physical activity: the role of usage and residential self-selection
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0689-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joreintje D. Mackenbach, Maria G. Matias de Pinho, Eline Faber, Nicole den Braver, Rosa de Groot, Helene Charreire, Jean-Michel Oppert, Helga Bardos, Harry Rutter, Sofie Compernolle, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Jeroen Lakerveld

Abstract

The availability of outdoor recreational facilities is associated with increased leisure-time physical activity (PA). We investigated how much of this association is attributable to selection effects, and explored whether usage of recreational facilities was an explanatory mechanism. We analysed data from 5199 participants in the SPOTLIGHT survey residing in five European urban regions. Adults completed a survey and a Google Street View-based virtual audit was conducted to objectively measure the availability of outdoor recreational facilities in the residential neighbourhood. We used negative binomial GEE models to examine the association between objective and subjective availability of outdoor recreational facilities and leisure-time PA, and explored whether this association was attenuated after adjustment for socioeconomic status and preference for neighbourhoods with recreational facilities (as indicators of self-selection). We examined whether reported use of recreational facilities was associated with leisure-time PA (as explanatory mechanism), and summarized the most important motivations for (not) using recreational facilities. Subjective - but not objective - availability of outdoor recreational facilities was associated with higher levels of total leisure-time PA. After adjustment for self-selection (which attenuated the association by 25%), we found a 25% difference in weekly minutes of total leisure-time PA between individuals with and without self-reported availability of outdoor recreational facilities. For our study population, this translates to about 28 min per week. Participants who reported outdoor recreational facilities to be present but indicated not to use them (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.03;1.22), and those reporting outdoor recreational facilities to be present and to use them (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.45) had higher levels of total leisure-time PA than those who reported outdoor recreational facilities not to be present. Proximity to outdoor recreational facilities was the most important motivation for use. The modest attenuation in the association between availability of outdoor recreational facilities and self-reported leisure-time PA suggests that individuals' higher activity levels may be due more to the perceived availability of outdoor recreational facilities than to self-selection. The use of these facilities seemed to be an important underlying mechanism, and proximity was the main motivator for using recreational facilities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Sports and Recreations 7 11%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 20 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,299,654
of 16,928,174 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#583
of 1,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,399
of 282,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,928,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them