Cargando…

The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources. METHOD: The one-page P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Rebecca E, Booth, Katie M, Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y, Regan, Gail, Howard, Hugh H
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13
_version_ 1782125905405018112
author Lee, Rebecca E
Booth, Katie M
Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y
Regan, Gail
Howard, Hugh H
author_facet Lee, Rebecca E
Booth, Katie M
Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y
Regan, Gail
Howard, Hugh H
author_sort Lee, Rebecca E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources. METHOD: The one-page Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument was developed to assess all publicly available PA resources in thirteen urban lower income, high ethnic minority concentration neighborhoods that surrounded public housing developments (HDs) and four higher income, low ethnic minority concentration comparison neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had similar population density and connectivity. Trained field coders rated 97 PA resources (including parks, churches, schools, sports facilities, fitness centers, community centers, and trails) on location, type, cost, features, amenities, quality and incivilities. Assessments typically took about 10 minutes to complete. RESULTS: HD neighborhoods had a mean of 4.9 PA resources (n = 73) with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. Comparison neighborhoods had a mean of 6 resources (n = 24). Most resources were accessible at no cost (82%). Resources in both types of neighborhoods typically had about 2 to 3 PA features and amenities, and the quality was usually mediocre to good in both types of neighborhoods. Incivilities at PA resources in HD neighborhoods were significantly more common than in comparison neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: Although PA resources were similar in number, features and amenities, the overall appearance of the resources in HD neighborhoods was much worse as indicated by substantially worse incivilities ratings in HD neighborhoods. The more comprehensive assessment, including features, amenities and incivilities, provided by the PARA may be important to distinguish between PA resources in lower and higher deprivation areas.
format Text
id pubmed-1262748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-12627482005-10-22 The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods Lee, Rebecca E Booth, Katie M Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y Regan, Gail Howard, Hugh H Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Research BACKGROUND: Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources. METHOD: The one-page Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument was developed to assess all publicly available PA resources in thirteen urban lower income, high ethnic minority concentration neighborhoods that surrounded public housing developments (HDs) and four higher income, low ethnic minority concentration comparison neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had similar population density and connectivity. Trained field coders rated 97 PA resources (including parks, churches, schools, sports facilities, fitness centers, community centers, and trails) on location, type, cost, features, amenities, quality and incivilities. Assessments typically took about 10 minutes to complete. RESULTS: HD neighborhoods had a mean of 4.9 PA resources (n = 73) with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. Comparison neighborhoods had a mean of 6 resources (n = 24). Most resources were accessible at no cost (82%). Resources in both types of neighborhoods typically had about 2 to 3 PA features and amenities, and the quality was usually mediocre to good in both types of neighborhoods. Incivilities at PA resources in HD neighborhoods were significantly more common than in comparison neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: Although PA resources were similar in number, features and amenities, the overall appearance of the resources in HD neighborhoods was much worse as indicated by substantially worse incivilities ratings in HD neighborhoods. The more comprehensive assessment, including features, amenities and incivilities, provided by the PARA may be important to distinguish between PA resources in lower and higher deprivation areas. BioMed Central 2005-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC1262748/ /pubmed/16162285 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13 Text en Copyright © 2005 Lee et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Lee, Rebecca E
Booth, Katie M
Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y
Regan, Gail
Howard, Hugh H
The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title_full The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title_fullStr The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title_full_unstemmed The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title_short The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
title_sort physical activity resource assessment (para) instrument: evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13
work_keys_str_mv AT leerebeccae thephysicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT boothkatiem thephysicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT reesesmithjacqueliney thephysicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT regangail thephysicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT howardhughh thephysicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT leerebeccae physicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT boothkatiem physicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT reesesmithjacqueliney physicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT regangail physicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods
AT howardhughh physicalactivityresourceassessmentparainstrumentevaluatingfeaturesamenitiesandincivilitiesofphysicalactivityresourcesinurbanneighborhoods