Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Overview of moderators of neighbourhood physical environmental correlates of active travel in older adults

From: The neighbourhood physical environment and active travel in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Moderators Environmental attribute (E) – AT outcome (AT) Findings
Individual: socio-demographics (self-reported)
Age (Barnes et al., in press) [62] E: (1) Walkability; (2) Public transport AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.
Age (Shigematsu et al., 2009) [63] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (8) Public transport; (9) Crime/personal safety; (10) Parks/open space/recreation destinations AT: (1) Total walking • Positive associations with (10) Parks/open space/recreation (park near home) only in 75+ year olds.
Sex (Inoue et al., 2011) [35] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Shops/commercial destinations; (3) Public transport; (4) Pedestrian-friendly features; (5) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (6) Crime/personal safety; (7) Park/open space/recreation; (8) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery AT: (1) Total walking • Positive associations with (2) Shops/commercial destinations and (7) Park/open space/recreation destinations only in women. • Positive associations with (4) Pedestrian-friendly features and (8) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery only in men. • Negative associations with (5) Traffic/pedestrian safety and (6) Crime/personal safety only in men.
Age Sex Education (Cerin et al., 2014) [58] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (7) Public transport; (8) Crime/personal safety; (9) Barriers to walking/cycling; (10) Easy access to building entrance; (11) Human or motorised traffic volume; (12) Benches/sitting facilities AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Within-neighbourhood walking • Positive associations of (3) Land use mix – destination diversity and (12) Benches/sitting facilities with (2) Within-neighbourhood walking only in 75+ year-olds. • Negative associations of (8) Crime/personal safety and (2) Within-neighbourhood walking only in women.
Age Sex (Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012) [25] E: (1) Access to destinations/services; (2) Shops/commercial destinations; (3) Public transport; (4) Public toilets; (5) Benches/sitting facilities; (6) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (7) Pedestrian-friendly features; (8) Crime/personal safety; (9) Street lights; (10) Littering/vandalism/decay; (11) Pollution; (12) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Cycling • Positive associations with (10) Littering/vandalism/decay and (1) Total walking in all but 75+ year-old women. • Complex Age by Sex interaction on (11) Pollution (1) Total walking associations. All associations positive. • Significant Age by Sex interaction on (4) Public toilets, (6) Traffic/pedestrian safety and (2) Cycling associations. However, no significant associations in subgroups (public toilets; presence of crossings) or all associations negative (traffic safety). • Positive associations of (9) Street lights with (2) Cycling only in <75-year old women. • See also interactions of Urbanism by Age or Sex below.
Living arrangements (Tsai et al., 2013) [64] E: (1) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (2) Barriers to walking/cycling; (3) Easy access to building entrance; (4) Land use mix – destination diversity AT: (1) Total walking • Positive association with (3) Easy access to building entrance only in those living alone.
Individual: psychosocial factors (perceived)
Social support for physical activity Self-efficacy for physical activity Perceived barriers to physical activity (Carlson et al., 2012) [65] E: (1) Walkability; (2) Parks/open space/recreation destinations AT: (1) Total walking • Stronger associations with (1) Walkability in those with higher social support and self-efficacy, and lower perceived barriers to physical activity.
Individual: vehicle ownership/driving status (self-reported)
Driving status (Ding et al., 2014) [22] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (8) Public transport; (9) Crime/personal safety; (10) Walkability; (11) Parks/open space/recreation destinations AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.
Individual: health status/functionality
Frailty (self-reported) (Etman et al., 2014) [33] E: (1) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (2) Pedestrian-friendly features; (3) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (4) Crime/personal safety; (5) Land use mix – destination diversity AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.
Chronic conditions (genitourinary, vision impairment, hearing impairment, musculoskeletal) (objective)(Barnett et al., 2016) [4] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (8) Public transport; (9) Crime/personal safety; (10) Barriers to walking/cycling; (11) Parks/open space/recreation destinations; (12) Easy access to building entrance; (13) Human or motorised traffic volume; (14) Littering/vandalism/decay; (15) Benches/sitting facilities AT: (1) Within-neighbourhood walking • Stronger positive associations with (2) Access to destination/services, (5) Pedestrian-friendly features and (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety in those with than without genitourinary diseases. • Stronger positive associations with (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery in those without vision impairment. • Stronger positive associations with (12) Easy access to building entrance in those with than without musculoskeletal diseases.
Mobility impairment (self-reported) (King et al., 2011) [34] E: (1) Walkability AT: (1) Walking + cycling • Stronger positive associations in least mobility impaired.
Environmental: area-level income (objective)
Area-level household income (King et al. 2011) [34] E: (1) Walkability AT: (1) Walking + cycling • No significant moderating effects.
Area-level socio-economic status (SES) (Kolbe-Alexander et al., 2015) [47] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (8) Crime/personal safety AT: (1) Walking + cycling • Positive associations with (5) Pedestrian-friendly features only in high-SES areas.
Area-level household income (Van Holle et al. 2014) [6] E: (1) Walkability AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Cycling • No significant moderating effects.
Area-level household income (Van Cauwenberg et al. 2016) [61] E: (1) Walkability AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.
Environmental: residential density/urbanisation (objective)
Urbanisation (Maisel, 2016) [48] E: (1) Residential density; (2) Access to destinations/services; (3) Land use mix – destination diversity; (4) Street connectivity; (5) Pedestrian-friendly features; (6) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery; (7) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (8) Crime/personal safety AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.
Urbanisation (Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012) [25] E: (1) Access to destinations/services; (2) Shops/commercial destinations; (3) Public transport; (4) Public toilets; (5) Benches/sitting facilities; (6) Traffic/pedestrian safety; (7) Pedestrian-friendly features; (8) Crime/personal safety; (9) Street lights; (10) Littering/vandalism/decay; (11) Pollution; (12) Greenery and aesthetically pleasing scenery AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Cycling • Positive associations of (2) Shops/commercial destinations with (1) Total walking in all participants but <75 year olds living in rural areas. • Significant Urbanisation by Sex interaction on (4) Public toilets and (2) Cycling associations. However, no significant associations in subgroups. • Significant positive associations between (5) Benches/sitting facilities and (2) Cycling only in rural women. • Significant positive associations between (10) Littering/vandalism/decay and (2) Cycling only in urban <75 year-old men. • Significant negative associations between (11) Pollution (noise) and (2) Cycling only in rural <75 year-old women.
Environmental: pedestrian infrastructure and streetscape (objective)
Sloping streets Public facilities Good path conditions Path obstructions Street lights (Cerin et al., 2013) [57] E: (1) Health and aged-care; (2) Religious destinations; (3) Public transport; (4) Parks/open space/recreation destinations; (5) Business/government/institutional/industrial); (6) Entertainment; (7) Shops/commercial; (8) Food outlets AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Within-neighbourhood walking • Stronger positive associations between (7) Shops/commercial destinations and (2) within-neighbourhood walking in areas with more path obstructions and fewer sloping streets. • Stronger positive associations between (7) Food outlets (shops and grocery stores) and (2) within-neighbourhood walking in areas with fewer path obstructions and no sloping streets.
Environmental: safety and traffic
Stray animals (objective) Signs of crime/disorder (objective) Pedestrian safety (objective) (Cerin et al., 2013) [57] E: (1) Health and aged-care; (2) Religious destinations; (3) Public transport; (4) Parks/open space/recreation destinations; (5) Business/government/institutional/industrial); (6) Entertainment; (7) Shops/commercial; (8) Food outlets AT: (1) Total walking; (2) Within-neighbourhood walking • Stronger positive associations between (3) Public transport and (1) Total walking; and (4) Parks/open space/recreation destinations and (2) Within-neighbourhood walking in areas with fewer stray animals. • Stronger positive associations of (4) Parks/open space/recreation destinations and (6) Entertainment and (2) Within-neighbourhood walking in areas with fewer signs of crime/disorder.
Traffic safety (perceived) Pedestrian safety (perceived) Crime safety (perceived) (Bracy et al., 2014) [66] E: (1) Walkability AT: (1) Total walking • No significant moderating effects.