Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from IJBNPA and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research

Socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults: the role of neighbourhood and individual factors

Carlijn BM Kamphuis1*, Frank J van Lenthe1, Katrina Giskes12, Martijn Huisman13, Johannes Brug14 and Johan P Mackenbach1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands

2 School of Public Health/Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

3 Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Centre Groningen, P.O. Box 30001, 9700 BB Groningen, The Netherlands

4 EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2009, 6:1  doi:10.1186/1479-5868-6-1

Published: 5 January 2009

Abstract

Background

People with a low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to be physically inactive than their higher status counterparts, however, the mechanisms underlying this socioeconomic gradient in physical inactivity remain largely unknown. Our aims were (1) to investigate socioeconomic differences in recreational walking among older adults and (2) to examine to what extent neighbourhood perceptions and individual cognitions regarding regular physical activity can explain these differences.

Methods

Data were obtained by a large-scale postal survey among a stratified sample of older adults (age 55–75 years) (N = 1994), residing in 147 neighbourhoods of Eindhoven and surrounding areas, in the Netherlands. Multilevel logistic regression analyses assessed associations between SES (i.e. education and income), perceptions of the social and physical neighbourhood environment, measures of individual cognitions derived from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (e.g. attitude, perceived behaviour control), and recreational walking for ≥10 minutes/week (no vs. yes).

Results

Participants in the lowest educational group (OR 1.67 (95% CI, 1.18–2.35)) and lowest income group (OR 1.40 (95% CI, 0.98–2.01)) were more likely to report no recreational walking than their higher status counterparts. The association between SES and recreational walking attenuated when neighbourhood aesthetics was included in the model, and largely reduced when individual cognitions were added to the model (with largest effects of attitude, and intention regarding regular physical activity). The assiation between poor neighbourhood aesthetics and no recreational walking attenuated to (borderline) insignificance when individual cognitions were taken into account.

Conclusion

Both neighbourhood aesthetics and individual cognitions regarding physical activity contributed to the explanation of socioeconomic differences in no recreational walking. Neighbourhood aesthetics may explain the association between SES and recreational walking largely via individual cognitions towards physical activity. Intervention and policy strategies to reduce socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults would be most effective if they intervene on both neighbourhood perceptions as well as individual cognitions.