Use of emerging technologies to assess differences in outdoor physical activity in St. Louis, Missouri

Frontiers in Public Health

Volumn 2, Issue MAY, 2014, Pages

  Adlakha, Deepti ^a   Budd, Elizabeth L ^a   Gernes, Rebecca ^a   Sequeira, Sonia ^a   Hipp, James A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

MapMyRun.com; Parks; Physical activity; Socioeconomic status; Web data feeds

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992107491     PISSN: None     EISSN: 22962565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00041     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Hoehner CM, Brownson RC. Worksite Policies and Neighborhood Influences on Obesity andCancerRisk. St. Louis,MO:TransdisciplinaryResearch on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) Center atWashington University in St. Louis (2010).
2. Office of the Surgeon General. Overweight and Obesity: At a Glance. (2011). Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_glance.html
3. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical Activity Guide-lines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008).
4. Flegal KM, CarrollMD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008. JAMA (2010) 303(3):235-41. doi:10.1001/jama. 2009.2014
5. US Department of Health & Human Services. Obesity and Socioeconomic Sta-tus in Adults: United States, 2005-2008 NCHS Data Brief (Vol. 50). Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (2010).
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Missouri -State Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Profile (P. A. Division of Nutrition, and Obesity, Trans.). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2012).
7. Centers forDisease Control and Prevention. SMART: Behavioral Risk Factor Sur-veillance System(BRFSS)City andCountyData andDocumentation.Atlanta,GA: Division of Behavioral Surveillance, Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office (PHSIPO) (2012).
8. Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Parks and recreation settings and active living: a review of associations with physical activity function and intensity. J Phys Act Health (2008) 5:619-632.
9. National Park Service Healthy Parks Healthy People: Strategic Action Plan.Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior (2011).
10. Kaczynski AT, Johnson AJ, Saelens BE. Neighborhood land use diversity and physical activity in adjacent parks. Health Place (2010) 16(2):413-5. doi:10. 1016/j.healthplace.2009.11.004
11. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Smale BJA, Havitz ME. Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: variations by gender and age. Leis Sci (2009) 31(2):174-91. doi:10.1080/01490400802686045
12. Han B,CohenDA,McKenzie TL.Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity. Prev Med (2013) 57(5):483-7. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed. 2013.06.021
13. Maas J,Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health (2006) 60(7):587-92. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043125
14. Maller C, Townsend M, Leger L, Henderson-Wilson C, Pryor A, Prosser L, et al. Healthy parks,healthy people: the health benefits of contactwith nature in a park context. In: Parks, Nature, and Health (Vol. 2). Melbourne, Australia: School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University (2008). p. 104.
15. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, Derose KP, Martinez H, Setodji C, et al. Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med (2010) 50(Suppl 1):S9-12. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020
16. CohenDA,McKenzie TL, SehgalA,Willamson S,GolinelliD, LurieN. Contribu-tion of public parks to physical activity. AmJ PublicHealth (2007) 97(3):509-14. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447
17. Hipp JA, Adlakha D, Chockalingam R. Social ecological constraints to park use in communities with proximate park access. LARNet (2013) 16(4):23-6.
18. Mitchell R, Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet (2008) 372:1655-60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X
19. Pearce J,Witten K, Hiscock R, Blakely T. Are socially disadvantaged neighbour-hoods deprived of health-related community resources? Int J Epidemiol (2007) 36:348-55. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl267
20. Suminski RR, Connolly EK,May LE,Wasserman J,Olvera N, Lee RE. Park qual-ity in racial/ethnic minority neighborhoods. Environ Justice (2012) 5(6):271-8. doi:10.1089/env.2012.0013
21. Brownson RC, Ramirez LKB, Cook RB, Elliott MB, McMullen KM. Reliability of two instruments for auditing the environment for physical activity. J Phys Act Health (2004) 1(3):191-208. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.11.001
22. McKenzie TL,CohenDA, SehgalA,Williamson S,GolinelliD. Systemfor observ-ing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health (2006) 3(Suppl 1):S208-22.
23. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health (2003) 93(9):1552-8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552
24. Sallis JF, Kerr J, Carlson JA, Norman GJ, Saelens BE, Durant N, et al. Evaluating a brief self-report measure of neighborhood environments for physical activity research and surveillance: Physical Activity Neighborhood Environment Scale (PANES). J Phys Act Health (2010) 7(4):533-40.
25. Ward P, McKenzie TL, Cohen D, Evenson KR, Golinelli D, Hillier A. Physical activity surveillance in parks using direct observation. Prev Chronic Dis (2014) 11:E03. doi:10.5888/pcd10.130147
26. The Trust for Public Land. 2010 City Park Facts Report. Washington, DC: The Trust for Public Land (2010).
27. United States Census Bureau. 2008-2012 American Community Survey (2012). Available from: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults. xhtml?refresh=t.
28. City of Saint Louis Department of Health. Public Health: Understanding Our Needs. Saint Louis,MO: The City of Saint Louis Department of Health (2012). 152 p.
29. Foster KA, Hipp JA. Defining neighborhood boundaries for social measure-ment: advancing social work research. Soc Work Res (2011) 35(1):25-35. doi:10.1093/swr/35.1.25
30. MapMyFitness. (2005). Available from: www.mapmyrun.com/us/
31. ESRI. USA Parks. 9.2 ed. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Insti-tute (2012).
32. Koepp J, ForsythA,Zimmerman J.Mapping Park Buffers:TheMinnesotaMethod. Minneapolis,MN: College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,Univer-sity of Minnesota (2005).
33. IBM Corp IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. (2012).
34. Weiss CC, Purciel M, Bader M, Quinn JW, Lovasi G, Neckerman KM, et al. Reconsidering access: park facilities and neighborhood disamenities in New York City. J Urban Health (2011) 88(2):297-310. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9551-z
35. Leslie E, Saelens B, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Coffee N, et al. Residents' per-ceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighbourhood: a pilot study. Health Place (2005) 11:227-36. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.05.005
36. Chase A. Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park. Minneapolis,MN: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (1987).
37. Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Goodbye Ranger! Sequestration will Kill America's Best Idea.Washington, DC (2012).
38. Browning W. St. Louis County Park System Threatened with Closures. (2011). Available from: http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-county-park-system-threatened-closures-210600727.html
39. Hampel P. Some St. Louis County Parks Could be Closed or Sold Off. (2011). Available from: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_ 44accba7-b5f6-585e-8f16-d2157ae496f1.html
40. comScore Inc. Smartphone OEM U.S. Subscriber Market Share. Reston: VA. (2013).
41. Smith A. Smartphone Adoption and Usage.Washington,DC: Pew Research Cen-ter (2011).