Walking is a popular form of physical activity and a convenient option to prevent chronic diseases. However, most of the evidence on this topic derives from high-income countries and little is known about walking patterns and its association with environmental features in low and middle income countries.
To describe walking for leisure and to identify its association with perceived environment and personal factors among residents of three state capitals from different regions of Brazil
Cross sectional phone surveys were conducted in Recife, Curitiba and Vitória (n = 6,166) in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively. Physical activity was measured using the leisure-time sections of the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Perceived environment characteristics were assessed using a modified version of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS). Multivariable analysis tested the associations between walking for leisure and perceived environment characteristics across the cities using logistic regression.
The proportions of respondents meeting physical activity recommendations through walking for leisure were 9.6%, 16.0% and 8.8% in Curitiba, Recife and Vitoria, respectively. Engaging in 150 min/wk or more of walking for leisure was significantly associated with younger age, higher education, better self-rated health and with lack of sidewalks on nearby streets. We did not find positive associations between walking for leisure and traffic conditions and safety related to cycling/walking during the day or night.
Most environmental features were not associated with walking for leisure. Personal factors were stronger predictors of walking for leisure as compared with perceived environment factors.
Regular practice of physical activity is associated with reduced risk of developing chronic diseases and mortality [
In high income countries, such as the United States, the percentage of people not meeting recommended levels of total physical activity is about 50,0% [
Physical inactivity is a complex behavior, determined by a series of factors at different levels. Over the last years, physical activity has been linked to personal barriers and to environmental factors [
Changes in the environment can encourage people to be more physically active [
There are few studies of the associations of the perceived environment and walking in Brazil [
The state capitals of Recife, Curitiba and Vitória have different social and environmental characteristics; however, they have in common the fact that they provide public PA programs free of cost to their population, Academia da Cidade in Recife, CuritibAtiva in Curitiba and Serviço de Orientação ao Exercício (Exercise Orientation Service) in Vitoria [
Sample characteristics in Recife, Curitiba and Vitória, Brazil, 2007-2009.
| Study site (year) | Recife (2007) | Curitiba (2008) | Vitória (2009) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligible respondents | 3632 | 3406 | 2690 | |
| Random sample | 2400 households with at least 1 telephone landline from each stratum, 12 clusters of 200 telephone numbers each. | 1000 people distributed across 9 strata and 1000 distributed in 4 extreme SES** strata. | Stratified according to presence or not of SOE* modules in the neighborhood | |
| Final sampling | 2046 | 2097 | 2023 | |
| Response rates | 64,5% | 60,5% | 75,2% | |
| Population | 1,561,659 | 1,851,215 | 320,156 | |
| Automobile fleet (units) | 307,166 | 867,066 | 109,305 | |
| Inhabitants/cars | 5.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 | |
| Crimes (Homicides/100,000 inhabitants) | 87.5 | 45.5 | 75.4 |
*SOE-Serviço de Orientação ao Exercício (Exercise Orientation Service)
** SES-Socio Economic Status
Eligible respondents were non-institutionalized residents of the three cities who were 18 years or older. A random-digit-dialing telephone survey was applied using the methods of the Brazilian Chronic Disease Risk Factor Surveillance [
A questionnaire was administered by trained interviewers with experience in telephone population surveys in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Averaging 20 minutes, the questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, and education level); health (perceived health, self-reported weight and height); physical activity (walking for leisure-time); and perceived environment (accessibility and safety).
Body mass index (BMI) was calculated based on self-reported weight and height and was categorized as normal (less than 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2) and obese (more than 30 kg/m2). The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) long version was used to assess physical activity. Walking for leisure was the dependent variable and a cutoff of 150 min/wk was used based on the most recent recommendations for physical activity and health [
Perceived environment information was obtained through a modified and culturally adapted version of the the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (A-NEWS)[
A descriptive analysis of walking for leisure according to personal and environmental factors, stratified by cities was conducted. A bivariate analysis was performed (using hierarchic model of logistic regression) between walking for leisure and selected independent variables stratifying by city. Three different models were run using multivariable logistic regression with walking for leisure as the dependent variable, stratifying by cities. We used the command svy to account for the complex sampling design and account for sampling weights. Model 1 included only demographic factors, model 2 included demographic factors, BMI, and perceived health, and model 3 included all previous variables plus perceived environment characteristics. We used the Stata 10 for data analysis.
Table
Demographic characteristics of participants according to the city of residence, Brazil, 2007-2009
| Variables | Categories | Curitiba | Recife | Vitória | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Men | 768 | 37.4 | 761 | 43.7 | 747 | 37.8 | 2276 | 39.8 |
| Women | 1,329 | 62.6 | 1,285 | 56.3 | 1,276 | 62.2 | 3890 | 60.2 | |
| Age categories | 16-34 | 611 | 47 | 700 | 47.6 | 614 | 44.8 | 1925 | 35.1 |
| 35-45 | 861 | 37.3 | 761 | 34.1 | 798 | 35 | 2420 | 39.7 | |
| 55+ | 625 | 15.6 | 585 | 18.3 | 611 | 20.2 | 1821 | 25,5 | |
| Education level | < High | 671 | 28.6 | 631 | 46.1 | 492 | 20.4 | 1794 | 34.1 |
| High school | 724 | 41.2 | 765 | 38.2 | 652 | 33.6 | 2141 | 34.7 | |
| > High school | 692 | 30.1 | 612 | 15.7 | 879 | 46.0 | 2183 | 31.2 | |
| Marital status | Single | 522 | 34.7 | 764 | 46.3 | 603 | 38.7 | 1889 | 33.1 |
| Married | 1,199 | 56 | 940 | 42.9 | 1053 | 50.4 | 3192 | 50.5 | |
| Other | 376 | 9.3 | 342 | 10.9 | 367 | 10.9 | 1085 | 16.4 | |
| Perceived health | Poor/Regular | 541 | 24.6 | 774 | 37.8 | 608 | 27.7 | 1923 | 29.6 |
| Good | 963 | 48.0 | 822 | 41.6 | 771 | 38.8 | 2556 | 38.7 | |
| Very good/excellent | 592 | 27.5 | 450 | 20.6 | 631 | 33.6 | 1673 | 31.8 | |
| Body mass index | Normal | 1,133 | 60.2 | 1,115 | 58.1 | 1,010 | 56.7 | 3258 | 59.7 |
| Overweight/Obese | 912 | 39.8 | 830 | 41.9 | 888 | 43.3 | 2630 | 40.3 | |
| Walking for leisure (150 min/week) | Yes | 361 | 15.1 | 378 | 14.3 | 387 | 17.6 | 5032 | 14.7 |
| No | 1,736 | 84.9 | 1,666 | 85.7 | 1,630 | 82.4 | 1126 | 85.3 | |
| Sidewalks on nearby streets | No | 541 | 29.3 | 284 | 18.9 | 1,036 | 53.3 | 1861 | 24.2 |
| Yes | 1,556 | 70.7 | 1762 | 81.1 | 936 | 46.7 | 4254 | 75.8 | |
| Traffic makes it difficult to cycle/walk | No | 967 | 45.1 | 1,077 | 56.4 | 692 | 37.9 | 2736 | 51.2 |
| Yes | 1,130 | 54.9 | 968 | 43.6 | 1,231 | 62.1 | 3329 | 48.8 | |
| Safe to cycle/walk during the night | No | 1,760 | 84.8 | 1,551 | 79.5 | 1,128 | 58.2 | 4439 | 80.5 |
| Yes | 337 | 15.2 | 495 | 20.5 | 816 | 41.8 | 1648 | 19.5 | |
| Safe to cycle/walk during the day | No | 775 | 37.2 | 806 | 44.4 | 408 | 21.6 | 1989 | 40.5 |
| Yes | 1,322 | 62.8 | 1,240 | 55.6 | 1,530 | 78.4 | 4092 | 59.5 | |
1Weighed prevalence rates
Results of crude and adjusted logistic regression are depicted in Tables
Unadjusted prevalence odds ratios for personal and environmental factors associated with walking in leisure time, Brazil, 2007-2009.
| Variables | Categories | Curitiba1 | Recife1 | Vitoria1 | All1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | OR (CI) | % | OR (CI) | % | OR (CI) | % | OR (CI) | ||
| Gender | Men | 15,3 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | 13,6 | 1.1 (0.7-1.5) | 18,1 | 0.9 (0.7-1.2) | 14,3 | 1.0 (0.8-1.3) |
| Women | 14,9 | Ref | 14,8 | Ref | 17,3 | Ref | 15,0 | Ref | |
| Age categories | 16-34 | 13,1 | 1.8 (1.2-2.7) | 12,3 | 2.3 (1.5-3.7) | 11,8 | 2.6 (1.9-3.7) | 11,0 | 2.1 (1.6-2.9) |
| 35-45 | 14,7 | 1.1 (0.7-1.6) | 13,3 | 1.9 (1.2-3.0) | 20,0 | 1.8 (1.3-2.5) | 16,4 | 1.5(1.1-2.1) | |
| 55+ | 22,0 | Ref | 21,8 | Ref | 26,3 | Ref | 21,2 | Ref | |
| Education level | < High | 14,9 | Ref | 12,3 | Ref | 16,4 | Ref | 13,2 | Ref |
| High school | 12,1 | 0.7 (0.5-1.1) | 13,3 | 1.0 (0.7-1.6) | 16,1 | 0.9 (0.6-1.3) | 12,9 | 1.6 (1.2-2.2) | |
| > High school | 19,5 | 1.3 (0.9-2.0) | 21,8 | 1.9 (1.2-3.0) | 19,3 | 1.2 (0.8-1.6) | 20,4 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | |
| Marital status | Single | 13,9 | 1.5 (0.9-2.5) | 10,5 | 2.8 (1.5-5.2) | 15,1 | 1.5 (1.0-2.2) | 11,8 | 2.2(1.5-3.4) |
| Married | 15,0 | 1.0 (0.7-1.5) | 15,4 | 1.5(1.0-2.2) | 18,8 | 1.3 (0.9-1.7) | 15,4 | 1.3 (1.0-1.7) | |
| Other | 20,0 | Ref | 25,3 | Ref | 21,2 | Ref | 23,4 | Ref | |
| Perceived health | Poor/Regular | 13,7 | Ref | 13,1 | Ref | 14,4 | Ref | 13,3 | Ref |
| Good | 12,8 | 0.9 (0.6-1.3) | 13,0 | 0.9 (0.6-1.5) | 17,8 | 1.2 (0.9-1.7) | 13,1 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | |
| Very good/ | 20,2 | 1.5 (1.0-2.4) | 19,1 | 1.5 (0.9-2.4) | 20,2 | 1.5 (1.0-2.1) | 19,7 | 1.5 (1.1-2.1) | |
| Body mass index | Normal | 15,9 | 0.9(0.6-1.2) | 14,2 | 0.9 (0.6-1.3) | 16,3 | 1.2(0.9-1.5) | 14,9 | 0.9 (0.7-1.1) |
| Overweight/ | 14,6 | Ref | 13,6 | Ref | 19,2 | Ref | 14,2 | Ref | |
| Sidewalks on t nearby streets | No | 11,6 | 1.5 (1.0-2.2) | 8,0 | 2.1(1.1-3.9) | 15,7 | 1.3 (1.0-1.7) | 10,3 | 1.6 (1.2-2.2) |
| Yes | 16,5 | Ref | 15,8 | Ref | 19,9 | Ref | 16,1 | Ref | |
| Traffic makes it difficult to cycle/walk | No | 13,6 | Ref | 14,3 | Ref | 17,2 | Ref | 14,2 | Ref |
| Yes | 16,8 | 0.7(0.5-1.0) | 14,3 | 1.0 (0.7-1.4) | 18,0 | 1.0 (0.8-1.4) | 15,2 | 0.9 (0.7-1.1) | |
| Safe to cycle/walk during the night | No | 17,9 | 0.8 (0.6-1.0) | 15,5 | 0.7 (0.5-0.9) | 17,0 | 0.9 (0.6-1.2) | 16,4 | 0.8 (0.630-1.021) |
| Yes | 13,4 | Ref | 13,3 | Ref | 18,4 | Ref | 13,6 | Ref | |
| Safe to cycle/walk during the day | No | 15,4 | 0.8 (0.5-1.2) | 14,2 | 1.0 (0.6-1.4) | 19,1 | 0.8 (0.6-1.0) | 14,8 | 0.9 (0.7-1.2) |
| Yes | 13,1 | Ref | 14,4 | Ref | 16,0 | Ref | 14,2 | Ref | |
1Weighed prevalence rates and prevalence odds ratios
Adjusted prevalence odds ratios for personal and environmental factors associated with walking in leisure time, Brazil, 2007-2009.
| Variables | Model* | Categories | Curitiba | Recife | Vitoria | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR1 | p-value | Adjusted OR1 | p-value | Adjusted OR1 | p-value | Adjusted OR1 | p-value | |||
| Gender | 1 | Men | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Women | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | 0.90 | 1.0 (0.7-1.5) | 0.64 | 1.0 (0.7-1.2) | 0.86 | 1.0 (0.8-1.2) | 0.84 | ||
| Age categories | 1 | 16-34 | 2.0 (1.2-3.4) | 4.3 (2.6-7.1) | 4.2 (2.8-6.5) | 3.0 (2.1-4.3) | ||||
| 35-45 | 1.2 (0.8-1.9) | 0.30 | 3.1 (1.9-5.0) | 2.3 (1.6-3.4) | 2.0 (1.4-2.7) | |||||
| 55+ | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
| Education level | 1 | < High | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
| High school | 1.5 (1.0-2.2) | 1.5 (1.0-2.4) | 0.03 | 1.3 (0.8-2.1) | 0.15 | 1.3 (0.9-1.7) | 0.07 | |||
| > High school | 0.8 (0.5-1.3) | 0.61 | 2.1 (1.3-3.3) | 1.6 (1.0-2.5) | 1.9 (1.4-2.6) | |||||
| Marital status | 1 | Single | 1.2 (0.6-2.1) | 0.47 | 1.1 (0.6-2.1) | 0.62 | 0.7 (0.5-1.0) | 0.19 | 1.2 (0.8-1.8) | 0.36 |
| Married | 1.0 (0.6-1.5) | 0.22 | 0.9 (0.6-1.5) | 0.87 | 0.7 (0.4-1.1) | 0.08 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | 0.99 | ||
| Other | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
| Perceived health | 2 | Poor/Regular | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Good | 0.9 (0.6-1.4) | 0.77 | 1.2 (0.8-1.8) | 0.30 | 1.4 (0.9-2.1) | 0.07 | 1.1 (0.8-1.4) | 0.49 | ||
| Very good/excellent | 1.5 (0.9-2.4) | 2.2 (1.4-3.4) | 1.7 (1.1-2.6) | 1.8 (1.3-2.4) | ||||||
| Body mass index | 2 | Normal | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | 0.35 | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | 0.35 | 1.1 (0.8-1.5) | 0.25 | 0.8 (0.6-1.0) | 0.22 |
| Overweight/Obese | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
| Sidewalks on nearby streets | 3 | No | 1.2 (0.8-1.8) | 0.34 | 1.8 (0.9-3.5) | 0.08 | 1.3 (1.0-1.7) | 1.5 (1.0-2.1) | ||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
| Traffic makes it difficult to cycle/walk | 3 | No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 0.8 (0.5-1.1) | 0.22 | 1.0 (0.7-1.5) | 0.63 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | 0.88 | 0.9 (0.7-1.2) | 0.77 | ||
| Safe to cycle/walk during the night | 3 | No | 0.7 (0.5-1.0) | 0.09 | 0.8 (0.5-1.2) | 0.42 | 0.9 (0.6-1.2) | 0.61 | 0.8 (0.6-1.0) | 0.12 |
| Yes | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
| Safe to cycle/walk during the day | 3 | No | 0.9 (0.5-1.5) | 0.83 | 0.9 (0.6-1.4) | 0.87 | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | 0.23 | 0.9 (0.7-1.3) | 0.93 |
| Yes | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||
1Weighed prevalence odds ratio adjusted for Gender, Age categories, Education level, Marital status, Perceived health and BMI; 2Weighed prevalence odds ratio adjusted for Gender, Age categories, Education level, Marital status, Perceived health, BMI and City
The adjusted logistic regression in the combined analysis (all three cities) showed some associations. Age group was significantly correlated with meeting recommendations through walking for leisure time. Younger age, having more than high school and reporting very good/excellent perceived health were found to be positively and significantly associated with walking for leisure. Presence of sidewalks on nearby streets was the only perceived environmental factor found to be associated with walking for leisure in a negative direction in the city of Vitoria.
This is one of the first studies examining personal and environmental factors associated with walking for leisure across cities in Brazil. We found that higher levels of walking for leisure were associated with lower age, higher educational status and better perceived health in all cities and with lack of nearby sidewalks in the city of Vitória and in the combined data. No associations were found with sex, marital status, BMI, perceived traffic and perceived safety to cycle/walk during day or night across all three cities. Some of the perceived environment characteristics presented correlations in the opposite directions than expected; for instance, presence of sidewalks was negatively associated with a higher likelihood of walking during leisure time.
Our findings can be interpreted in light of other research from the region. For example, Matsudo and colleagues [
In addition, according to findings from all State capitals of Brazil, men tend to be more active during leisure time when compared to women [
Research derived from high and low-middle income countries, shows associations between several perceived environment attributes and physical activity [
The contradictory finding of a positive association between walking for leisure and lack of sidewalks on nearby streets, could be explained by the fact that in some cities of Brazil sidewalks may serve more as a barrier rather that a facilitator for walking. This is due to their poor quality and maintenance as well as overcrowding which limits the ability and the enjoyment of walking. This highlights the importance of developing scales that are culturally relevant and context specific for cities in Latin America, that have very different characteristics from cities found in North America and Europe. Despite the cultural adaptation of the A-News scale conducted for this study, the scale is capturing attributes of the environment that are based on findings from studies conducted in the United States, which has significant differences in terms of socio-demographic, economic, and cultural characteristics when compared to Brazil [
This study adds to the evidence base on determinants of physical activity by incorporating a range of individual and environmental measures. It is one of the few such studies from Latin America. In summary, personal factors were more strongly related to walking for leisure than perceived environmental features. Further studies should explore other environmental characteristics, including similar analyses in other cities in Brazil and Latin America. Future research should also examine these associations longitudinally.
PA: physical activity.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors made substantial contributions to the design of the study. GAOG analyzed and interpreted the data and wrote the draft version. RR and AAFH and RR were involved in the acquisition of the data. IR, DCP, DM, PH and RB were involved in the writing of the paper and critical revision of the manuscript, and have given their approval for the submitted manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This study was funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers Program contract U48/DP001903 (Applying Evidence-Physical Activity Recommendations in Brazil). The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors thank all members of Project GUIA for their valuable contribution and input. The authors are also thankful for the contribution of CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de Nível Superior) for funding researchers from Brazil. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board from Washington University in St. Louis.