Evaluating the quality and accessibility of physical activity resources in two southern cities

Heather J. Adamus, Scherezade K. Mama, Iman Sahnoune, Rebecca E. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. Design: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. Setting: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. Patients: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. Measures: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. Analysis: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. Results: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p <.001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = 26.89; p <.001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M 5 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p <.001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p =.025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p <.001) than pay for use PARs. Conclusion: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)52-54
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Health Promotion
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2012

Fingerprint

Exercise
resources
clubs
Quality Improvement
fitness
audit
Analysis of Variance
Research Personnel
Observation
participation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health(social science)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

@article{8afdfbfbb47d434c998d89090a809f66,
title = "Evaluating the quality and accessibility of physical activity resources in two southern cities",
abstract = "Purpose: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. Design: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. Setting: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. Patients: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. Measures: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. Analysis: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. Results: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p <.001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = 26.89; p <.001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M 5 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p <.001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p =.025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p <.001) than pay for use PARs. Conclusion: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.",
author = "Adamus, {Heather J.} and Mama, {Scherezade K.} and Iman Sahnoune and Lee, {Rebecca E.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4278/ajhp.110617-ARB-257",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "52--54",
journal = "American Journal of Health Promotion",
issn = "0890-1171",
publisher = "American Journal of Health Promotion",
number = "1",

}

Evaluating the quality and accessibility of physical activity resources in two southern cities. / Adamus, Heather J.; Mama, Scherezade K.; Sahnoune, Iman; Lee, Rebecca E.

In: American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.09.2012, p. 52-54.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the quality and accessibility of physical activity resources in two southern cities

AU - Adamus, Heather J.

AU - Mama, Scherezade K.

AU - Sahnoune, Iman

AU - Lee, Rebecca E.

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - Purpose: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. Design: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. Setting: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. Patients: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. Measures: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. Analysis: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. Results: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p <.001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = 26.89; p <.001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M 5 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p <.001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p =.025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p <.001) than pay for use PARs. Conclusion: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.

AB - Purpose: Access and quality of physical activity resources (PARs) influence physical activity (PA) participation. This study examined the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of PARs in two cities. Design: Researchers identified all PARs within an 800-meter radius of the homes of participants from a larger study. Each PAR was evaluated by a trained assessor. Setting: PARs were evaluated in Houston and Austin, Texas. Patients: The final sample included 1326 PARs in Houston and 297 in Austin, Texas. Measures: The 2010 Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), a direct-observation audit tool, was used to assess the type, size, accessibility, features, amenities, and incivilities of a PAR. Analysis: Both t-tests and analyses of variance were used to determine differences in features, amenities, and incivilities by city, type, and accessibility. Results: Houston PARs had greater amenities (t[421] = 4.445; p <.001) and fewer incivilities (t[371] = 26.89; p <.001) than Austin PARs. Combination resources had the highest score for features (M = 9.94; standard deviation [SD] = 5.62); fitness clubs had the highest score for amenities (M = 17.06; SD = 5.27); and trails had the most incivilities (M 5 4.23; SD = 4.88). Free PARs had greater features (F[3, 1509] = 16.87; p <.001), amenities (F[3, 1500] = 3.13; p =.025), and incivilities (F[3, 1540] = 21.97; p <.001) than pay for use PARs. Conclusion: Improvements to quality and maintenance of existing free PARs may be an economical strategy to increase PA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866505738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866505738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4278/ajhp.110617-ARB-257

DO - 10.4278/ajhp.110617-ARB-257

M3 - Article

C2 - 22950926

AN - SCOPUS:84866505738

VL - 27

SP - 52

EP - 54

JO - American Journal of Health Promotion

JF - American Journal of Health Promotion

SN - 0890-1171

IS - 1

ER -