Examining Place-Based Neighborhood Factors in a Multisite Peer-Led Healthy Lifestyle Effectiveness Trial for People with Serious Mental Illness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Parent Study
2.2. Study Design and Geospatial Data Sources
2.3. Neighborhood-Level Measures
2.4. Social Environment Measures
2.5. Built Environment Measures
2.5.1. Urban Design
2.5.2. Healthcare Infrastructure
2.5.3. Legal Drug Environment
2.5.4. Physical Activity Environment
2.5.5. Neighborhood Food Environment
2.6. Individual-Level Dietary and Physical Activity Behaviors
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Within City Differences: PGLB Neighborhoods Versus Non-Study Neighborhoods
3.3. Between City Differences in Place-Based Factors
3.4. Baseline Differences in Dietary Behaviors and Physical Activity by Place-Based Factors, among PGLB Study Participants
3.4.1. Dietary Behaviors
3.4.2. Physical Inactivity (Not Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines)
4. Discussion
4.1. The Role of Place in the Health and Wellbeing of People with SMI: A Nascent Field
4.2. The House-Poor Hypothesis and the Role of the Social Environment in Healthy Eating and Active Living among People with SMI in Cities
4.3. Walkability, Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure and Physical Activity among People with SMI: Counter-Intuitive Findings Requiring Further Study
4.4. Considering the Broader Role of Context and Place-Based Settings When Designing and Testing Interventions to Modify Place-Based Behaviors
4.5. Limitations and Strengths
4.6. Future Research Recommendations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Firth, J.; Siddiqi, N.; Koyanagi, A.; Siskind, D.; Rosenbaum, S.; Galletly, C.; Allan, S.; Caneo, C.; Carney, R.; Carvalho, A.F.; et al. The Lancet Psychiatry Commission: A blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry 2019, 6, 675–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cabassa, L.J.; Siantz, E.; Nicasio, A.; Guarnaccia, P.; Lewis-Fernández, R. Contextual Factors in the Health of People With Serious Mental Illness. Qual. Health Res. 2014, 24, 1126–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mangurian, C.; Keenan, W.; Newcomer, J.W.; Vittinghoff, E.; Creasman, J.M.; Schillinger, D. Diabetes Prevalence Among Racial-Ethnic Minority Group Members With Severe Mental Illness Taking Antipsychotics: Double Jeopardy? Psychiatr. Serv. 2017, 68, 843–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carliner, H.; Collins, P.Y.; Cabassa, L.J.; McNallen, A.; Joestl, S.S.; Lewis-Fernández, R. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among racial and ethnic minorities with schizophrenia spectrum and bipolar disorders: A critical literature review. Compr. Psychiatry 2014, 55, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Hert, M.; Correll, C.U.; Bobes, J.; Cetkovich-Bakmas, M.; Cohen, D.; Asai, I.; Detraux, J.; Gautam, S.; Möller, H.J.; Ndetei, D.M.; et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. I. Prevalence, impact of medications and disparities in health care. World Psychiatry 2011, 10, 52–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprio, S.; Daniels, S.R.; Drewnowski, A.; Kaufman, F.R.; Palinkas, L.A.; Rosenbloom, A.L.; Schwimmer, J.B. Influence of race, ethnicity, and culture on childhood obesity: Implications for prevention and treatment. Obes. (Silver Spring) 2008, 16, 2566–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallis, J.; Owen, N.; Fisher, E. Ecological Models of Health Behavior. In Health Behavior and Health Education; Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Viwanath, K., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; Volume 4, pp. 465–487. [Google Scholar]
- Lachapelle, U.; Frank, L.; Saelens, B.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L. Commuting by public transit and physical activity: Where you live, where you work, and how you get there. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8 (Suppl. 1), S72–S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Vandelanotte, C.; Leslie, E.; Merom, D. Recreational facilities and leisure-time physical activity: An analysis of moderators and self-efficacy as a mediator. Health Psychol. 2008, 27, S126–S135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowler, W.C.; Barrett-Connor, E.; Fowler, S.E.; Hamman, R.F.; Lachin, J.M.; Walker, E.A.; Nathan, D.M. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 346, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabassa, L.J.; Ezell, J.M.; Lewis-Fernández, R. Lifestyle Interventions for Adults With Serious Mental Illness: A Systematic Literature Review. Psychiatr. Serv. 2010, 61, 774–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehl Institute. Inclusive Healthy Places. A Guide to Inclusion & Health in Public Space: Learning Globally to Transform Locally; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mackenzie, A. Placemaking and Place-Led Development. Available online: https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-and-place-led-development-a-new-paradigm-for-cities-of-the-future (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Susser, E.; Kirkbride, J.B. Neighbourhood and mortality in severe mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry 2019, 6, 456–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Byrne, T.; Prvu Bettger, J.; Brusilovskiy, E.; Wong, Y.L.; Metraux, S.; Salzer, M.S. Comparing neighborhoods of adults with serious mental illness and of the general population: Research implications. Psychiatr. Serv. 2013, 64, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Young-Wolff, K.C.; Henriksen, L.; Delucchi, K.; Prochaska, J.J. Tobacco retailer proximity and density and nicotine dependence among smokers with serious mental illness. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 1454–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcántara, C.; Diaz, S.V.; Cosenzo, L.G.; Loucks, E.B.; Penedo, F.J.; Williams, N.J. Social determinants as moderators of the effectiveness of health behavior change interventions: Scientific gaps and opportunities. Health Psychol. Rev. 2020, 14, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabassa, L.J.; Stefancic, A.; O’Hara, K.; El-Bassel, N.; Lewis-Fernández, R.; Luchsinger, J.A.; Gates, L.; Younge, R.; Wall, M.; Weinstein, L.; et al. Peer-led healthy lifestyle program in supportive housing: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015, 16, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabassa, L.J.; Stefancic, A.; Lewis-Fernández, R.; Luchsinger, J.; Weinstein, L.C.; Guo, S.; Palinkas, L.; Bochicchio, L.; Wang, X.; O’Hara, K.; et al. Main Outcomes of a Peer-Led Healthy Lifestyle Intervention for People With Serious Mental Illness in Supportive Housing. Psychiatr. Serv. 2021, 72, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hara, K.; Stefancic, A.; Cabassa, L.J. Developing a peer-based healthy lifestyle program for people with serious mental illness in supportive housing. Transl. Behav. Med. 2017, 7, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diez Roux, A.V.; Mair, C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1186, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownson, R.C.; Hoehner, C.M.; Day, K.; Forsyth, A.; Sallis, J.F. Measuring the Built Environment for Physical Activity State of the Science. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, S99–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Conway, T.L.; Slymen, D.J.; Cain, K.L.; Chapman, J.E.; Kerr, J. Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharkey, P.; Faber, J.W. Where, When, Why, and For Whom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away from the Dichotomous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014, 40, 559–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerin, E.; Sallis, J.F.; Salvo, D.; Hinckson, E.; Conway, T.L.; Owen, N.; van Dyck, D.; Lowe, M.; Higgs, C.; Moudon, A.V.; et al. Determining thresholds for spatial urban design and transport features that support walking to create healthy and sustainable cities: Findings from the IPEN Adult study. Lancet Glob. Health 2022, 10, e895–e906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Adams, M.A.; Frank, L.D.; Pratt, M.; Salvo, D.; Schipperijn, J.; Smith, G.; Cain, K.L.; et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016, 387, 2207–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lowe, M.; Adlakha, D.; Sallis, J.F.; Salvo, D.; Cerin, E.; Moudon, A.V.; Higgs, C.; Hinckson, E.; Arundel, J.; Boeing, G.; et al. City planning policies to support health and sustainability: An international comparison of policy indicators for 25 cities. Lancet Glob. Health 2022, 10, e882–e894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boeing, G.; Higgs, C.; Liu, S.; Giles-Corti, B.; Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Lowe, M.; Adlakha, D.; Hinckson, E.; Moudon, A.V.; et al. Using open data and open-source software to develop spatial indicators of urban design and transport features for achieving healthy and sustainable cities. Lancet Glob. Health 2022, 10, e907–e918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sallis, J.F.; Cerin, E.; Kerr, J.; Adams, M.A.; Sugiyama, T.; Christiansen, L.B.; Schipperijn, J.; Davey, R.; Salvo, D.; Frank, L.D.; et al. Built Environment, Physical Activity, and Obesity: Findings from the International Physical Activity and Environment Network (IPEN) Adult Study. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2020, 41, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martínez-García, A.; Trescastro-López, E.M.; Galiana-Sánchez, M.E.; Pereyra-Zamora, P. Data Collection Instruments for Obesogenic Environments in Adults: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zumelzu, A.; Herrmann-Lunecke, M.G. Mental Well-Being and the Influence of Place: Conceptual Approaches for the Built Environment for Planning Healthy and Walkable Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Moudon, A.V.; Lowe, M.; Adlakha, D.; Cerin, E.; Boeing, G.; Higgs, C.; Arundel, J.; Liu, S.; Hinckson, E.; et al. Creating healthy and sustainable cities: What gets measured, gets done. Lancet Glob. Health 2022, 10, e782–e785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, A.S.; Salvo, D.; Tabak, R.G.; Haire-Joshu, D. Does the neighborhood built environment moderate the effectiveness of a weight-loss intervention for mothers with overweight or obesity? Findings from the Healthy Eating and Active Living Taught at Home (HEALTH) study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2022, 19, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, A.C.; Salvo, D.; Banda, J.A.; Ahn, D.K.; Chapman, J.E.; Gill, T.M.; Fielding, R.A.; Demons, J.; Tudor-Locke, C.; Rosso, A.; et al. Preserving older adults’ routine outdoor activities in contrasting neighborhood environments through a physical activity intervention. Prev. Med. 2017, 96, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- U.S. Census Bureau. 2014–2018 American Community Survey 5-year Public Use Microdata Samples; U.S. Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.E.; Leary, L.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.L.; Hess, P.M. The development of a walkability index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 924–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, G.; Gillespie, C.; Rosenbaum, E.H.; Jenson, C. A rapid food screener to assess fat and fruit and vegetable intake. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2000, 18, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- USDA; USDHHS. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, 9th ed.; USDA: Washington, DC, USA; USDHHS: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Malik, V.S.; Hu, F.B. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Cardiometabolic Health: An Update of the Evidence. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Craig, C.L.; Marshall, A.L.; Sjöström, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Booth, M.L.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Pratt, M.; Ekelund, U.; Yngve, A.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003, 35, 1381–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17; StataCorp.: College Station, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Loh, V.H.Y.; Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Cerin, E.; Thornton, L.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Timperio, A. Built environment and physical activity among adolescents: The moderating effects of neighborhood safety and social support. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Queralt, A.; Molina-García, J. Physical Activity and Active Commuting in Relation to Objectively Measured Built-Environment Attributes Among Adolescents. J. Phys. Act. Health 2019, 16, 371–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-García, J.; Queralt, A.; Adams, M.A.; Conway, T.L.; Sallis, J.F. Neighborhood built environment and socio-economic status in relation to multiple health outcomes in adolescents. Prev. Med. 2017, 105, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dyck, D.; Cerin, E.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Salvo, D.; Christiansen, L.B.; Macfarlane, D.; Owen, N.; Mitas, J.; Troelsen, J.; Aguinaga-Ontoso, I.; et al. Moderating effects of age, gender and education on the associations of perceived neighborhood environment attributes with accelerometer-based physical activity: The IPEN adult study. Health Place 2015, 36, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvo, D.; Yarnell, L.; Brown, H., III. Understanding the relation between the built environment and physical activity: What is the role of neighborhood capitalization? In Proceedings of the Active Living Research Annual Conference, Clearwater, FL, USA, 26 February–1 March 2017.
- Serrano, N.; Realmuto, L.; Graff, K.A.; Hirsch, J.A.; Andress, L.; Sami, M.; Rose, K.; Smith, A.; Irani, K.; McMahon, J.; et al. Healthy Community Design, Anti-displacement, and Equity Strategies in the USA: A Scoping Review. J. Urban Health 2023, 100, 151–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunn, L.D.; Saghapour, T.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Exploring inequities in housing affordability through an analysis of walkability and house prices by neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage. Cities Health 2022, 6, 616–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sotomayor, L.; Tarhan, D.; Vieta, M.; McCartney, S.; Mas, A. When students are house-poor: Urban universities, student marginality, and the hidden curriculum of student housing. Cities 2022, 124, 103572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvo, D.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Reis, R.S.; Hino, A.A.F.; Bolivar, M.A.; Lemoine, P.D.; Goncalves, P.B.; Pratt, M. Where Latin Americans are physically active, and why does it matter? Findings from the IPEN-adult study in Bogota, Colombia; Cuernavaca, Mexico; and Curitiba, Brazil. Prev. Med. 2017, 103S, S27–S33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodhall-Melnik, J.; Misir, V.; Kaufman-Shriqui, V.; O’Campo, P.; Stergiopoulos, V.; Hwang, S. The Impact of a 24 Month Housing First Intervention on Participants’ Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference: Results from the At Home/Chez Soi Toronto Site Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0137069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstein, L.C.; Henwood, B.F.; Matejkowski, J.; Santana, A.J. Moving From Street to Home: Health Status of Entrants to a Housing First Program. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2011, 2, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstein, L.C.; LaNoue, M.; Collins, E.; Henwood, B.F.; Drake, R.E. Health Care Integration for Formerly Homeless People With Serious Mental Illness. J. Dual Diagn. 2013, 9, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez-Rubio, O.; Daher, C.; Fanjul, G.; Gascon, M.; Mueller, N.; Pajín, L.; Plasencia, A.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Thondoo, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Urban health: An example of a “health in all policies” approach in the context of SDGs implementation. Glob. Health 2019, 15, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milton, K.; Cavill, N.; Chalkley, A.; Foster, C.; Gomersall, S.; Hagstromer, M.; Kelly, P.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.; Mair, J.; McLaughlin, M.; et al. Eight Investments That Work for Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2021, 18, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, C.; de Lannoy, A.; McCracken, D.; Gill, T.; Grant, M.; Wright, H.; Williams, S. Special issue: Child-friendly cities. Cities Health 2019, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Hoof, J.; Marston, H.R.; Kazak, J.K.; Buffel, T. Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Build. Environ. 2021, 199, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verlinghieri, E.; Schwanen, T. Transport and mobility justice: Evolving discussions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 87, 102798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
New York City | Philadelphia | Between-City Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 17) | Rest of the City (n = 180) | p-Value | PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 25) | Rest of the City (n = 21) | p-Value | New York City (n = 197) | Philadelphia (n = 46) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | ||||
Net Population Density 1 | |||||||||
Low (<20,891.76) | 17.65 (3) | 28.89 (52) | 0.000 | 48 (12) | 66.67 (14) | 0.456 | 27.92 (55) | 56.52 (26) | 0.000 |
Medium (20,891.76–<58,532.75 | 0 | 35.56 (64) | 44 (11) | 28.57 (6) | 32.49 (64) | 36.96 (17) | |||
High (≥58,532.75) | 82.35 (14) | 35.56 (64) | 8 (2) | 4.76 (1) | 39.59 (78) | 6.52 (3) | |||
Age group | |||||||||
Young (<35 years) | 29.41 (5) | 27.78 (50) | 0.999 | 64 (16) | 47.62 (10) | 0.372 | 27.92 (55) | 56.52 (26) | 0.001 |
Middle age (35–64 years) | 70.59 (12) | 71.67 (129) | 36 (9) | 52.38 (11) | 71.57 (141) | 43.48 (20) | |||
Old (65+ years) | 0 | 0.56 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0.51 (1) | 0 | |||
Predominant race 2 | |||||||||
Asian | 0 | 1.11 (2) | 0.265 | 0 | 0 | 0.309 | 1.02 (2) | 0 | 0.001 |
Black | 5.88 (1) | 8.89 (16) | 28 (7) | 28.57 (6) | 8.63 (17) | 28.26 (13) | |||
Hispanic/Latino | 25.53 (4) | 8.89 (16) | 0 | 0 | 10.15 (20) | 0 | |||
White | 11.76 (2) | 27.78 (50) | 24 (6) | 42.86 (9) | 26.40 (52) | 39.13 (18) | |||
Other race 2a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Mixed | 58.82 (10) | 53.33 (96) | 28.57 (6) | 48 (12) | 53.81 (106) | 39.13 (18) | |||
Population living poverty 3 | |||||||||
<50% living in poverty | 64.71 (11) | 91.11 (164) | 0.001 | 90.48 (19) | 56 (14) | 0.019 | 88.89 (175) | 71.74 (33) | 0.001 |
≥50% living in poverty | 35.29 (6) | 8.89 (16) | 9.52 (2) | 44 (11) | 11.17 (22) | 28.26 (13) | |||
Predominant housing type 4 | |||||||||
Single Family homes | 0 | 3.33 (6) | 0.019 | 0 | 0 | 0.296 | 3.05 (6) | 0 | 0.000 |
Row or single family attached | 0 | 0 | 56 (14) | 33.33 (7) | 0 | 45.65 (21) | |||
Duplex | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Apartment (3+ units) | 94.12 (16) | 59.44 (107) | 8 (2) | 9.52 (2) | 62.44 (123) | 8.70 (4) | |||
Other 4a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Mixed | 5.88 (1) | 37.22 (67) | 36 (9) | 57.14 (12) | 34.52 (68) | 45.65 (21) | |||
Population with a college degree | |||||||||
<60% with college degree | 35.29 (6) | 36.1 (65) | 0.999 | 56 (14) | 38.10 (8) | 0.253 | 36.04 (71) | 47.83 (22) | 0.177 |
≥60% with college degree | 64.71 (11) | 36.89 (115) | 44 (11) | 61.90 (13) | 63.96 (126) | 52.17 (24) | |||
Housing vacancy in the neighborhood | |||||||||
Low vacancy (<7%) | 47.06 (8) | 37.22 (67) | 0.625 | 12 (3) | 19.05 (4) | 0.782 | 38.07 (75) | 15.22 (7) | 0.000 |
Medium vacancy (7–<11.15%) | 35.29 (6) | 34.44 (62) | 28 (7) | 28.57 (6) | 34.52 (68) | 28.26 (13) | |||
High vacancy (≥11.15%) | 17.65 (3) | 28.33 (51) | 60 (15) | 52.38 (11) | 27.41 (54) | 56.52 (26) | |||
Percentage of rented (vs. owned) housing units in the neighborhood | |||||||||
Low (<43%) | 5.88 (1) | 28.33 (51) | 0.024 | 60 (15) | 66.67 (14) | 0.666 | 26.40 (52) | 63.04 (29) | 0.000 |
Medium (43–<63.3%) | 23.53 (4) | 34.44 (62) | 32 (8) | 33.33 (7) | 33.50 (66) | 32.61 (15) | |||
High (≥63.3%) | 70.59 (12) | 37.22 (67) | 8 (2) | 0 | 40.10 (79) | 4.35 (2) |
New York City | Philadelphia | Between-City Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 17) | Rest of the City (n = 180) | p-Value | PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 25) | Rest of the City (n = 21) | p-Value | New York City (n = 197) | Philadelphia (n = 46) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | ||||
Urban Design Environment | |||||||||
Land Use Mix 1 | |||||||||
Low (<0.67) | 11.76 (2) | 41.11 (74) | 0.035 | 12 (3) | 9.52 (2) | 0.848 | 38.58 (76) | 10.87 (5) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.67–<0.82) | 41.18 (7) | 32.22 (58) | 32 (8) | 38.10 (8) | 32.99 (65) | 34.78 (16) | |||
High (≥0.82) | 47.06 (8) | 26.67 (48) | 56 (14) | 52.38 (11) | 28.43 (56) | 54.35 (25) | |||
Connectivity 2 | |||||||||
Low (< 269) | 29.41 (5) | 31.11 (56) | 0.412 | 36 (9) | 52.38 (11) | 0.196 | 30.96 (61) | 43.48 (20) | 0.120 |
Medium (269–< 363.7) | 23.53 (4) | 37.22 (67) | 32 (8) | 9.52 (2) | 36.04 (71) | 21.74 (10) | |||
High (≥ 363.7) | 47.06 (8) | 31.67 (57) | 32 (8) | 38.10 (8) | 32.99 (65) | 34.78 (16) | |||
Walkability Index 3 | |||||||||
Low (<0.37) | 11.76 (2) | 28.33 (51) | 0.311 | 56 (14) | 66.67 (14) | 0.771 | 26.90 (53) | 60.87 (28) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.37–< 1.41) | 47.06 (8) | 34.44 (62) | 28 (7) | 19.05 (4) | 35.53 (70) | 23.91 (11) | |||
High (≥ 1.41) | 41.18 (7) | 37.22 (67) | 16 (4) | 14.29 (3) | 37.56 (74) | 15.22 (7) | |||
Transit Stops Density a | |||||||||
Low (<22.08) | 29.41 (5) | 38.89 (70) | 0.559 | 8 (2) | 19.05 (4) | 0.075 | 38.07 (75) | 33.04 (6) | 0.000 |
Medium (22.08–<36.45) | 35.29 (6) | 63.11 (65) | 12 (3) | 33.33 (7) | 36.04 (71) | 21.74 (10) | |||
High (≥ 36.45) | 35.29 (6) | 25 (45) | 80 (20) | 47.62 (10) | 28.89 (51) | 35.22 (30) | |||
Healthcare Environment | |||||||||
Hospital density b | |||||||||
Low (0) | 29.41 (5) | 42.78 (77) | 0.104 | 0 | 0 | 0.024 | 41.62 (82) | 0 | 0.000 |
Medium (>0–<0.000055) | 52.94 (9) | 26.67 (48) | 52 (1) | 47.62 (10) | 28.93 (57) | 50 (23) | |||
High (≥0.000055) | 17.65 (3) | 30.56 (55) | 48 (12) | 52.38 (11) | 29.44 (58) | 50 (23) | |||
Pharmacy & drug store density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.00014) | 17.65 (3) | 19.44 (35) | 0.573 | 92 (23) | 95.24 (20) | 0.999 | 19.29 (38) | 93.48 (43) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.00014–<0.0003) | 29.41 (5) | 41.11 (74) | 4 (1) | 4.76 (1) | 40.10 (79) | 4.35 (2) | |||
High (≥0.0003) | 52.94 (9) | 39.44 (71) | 4 (1) | 0 | 40.61 (80) | 2.17 (1) | |||
Legal Drug Environment | |||||||||
Licensed tobacco sale place density b | |||||||||
Low (0) | 52.94 (9) | 54.44 (98) | 0.298 | 60 (15) | 66.67 (14) | 0.666 | 54.31 (107) | 63.04 (29) | 0.293 |
Medium (>0–<0.00002) | 23.53 (4) | 11.11 (20) | 8 (2) | 0 | 12.18 (24) | 4.35 (2) | |||
High (≥0.00002) | 23.53 (4) | 34.44 (62) | 32 (8) | 33.33 (7) | 33.50 (66) | 32.61 (15) | |||
Liquor store density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.0001) | 23.53 (4) | 26.67 (48) | 0.278 | 64 (16) | 61.90 (13) | 0.999 | 26.40 (52) | 63.04 (29) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.0001–<0.0002) | 52.94 (9) | 33.89 (61) | 24 (6) | 23.81 (5) | 35.53 (70) | 23.91 (11) | |||
High (≥0.0002) | 23.53 (4) | 39.44 (71) | 12 (3) | 14.29 (3) | 38.07 (75) | 13.04 (6) |
New York City | Philadelphia | Between-City Differences | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 17) | Rest of the City (n = 180) | p-Value | PGLB Neighborhoods (n = 25) | Rest of the City (n = 21) | p-Value | New York City (n = 197) | Philadelphia (n = 46) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | ||||
Physical Activity Environment | |||||||||
Public and private recreation facilities | |||||||||
Public park density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.000211) | 5.88 (1) | 21.67 (39) | 0.191 | 96 (24) | 80.95 (17) | 0.163 | 20.30 (40) | 89.13 (41) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.000211–<0.00632) | 35.29 (6) | 38.89 (70) | 4 (1) | 19.05 (4) | 38.58 (76) | 10.87 (5) | |||
High (≥0.00632) | 58.82 (10) | 39.44 (71) | 0 | 0 | 41.12 (81) | 0 | |||
Public Recreation centre density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.00002) | 29.41 (5) | 30.56 (55) | 0.069 | 52 (13) | 38.10 (8) | 0.596 | 30.46 (60) | 45.65 (21) | 0.103 |
Medium (0.00002–<0.00005) | 58.82 (10) | 33.89 (61) | 16 (4) | 28.57 (6) | 36.04 (71) | 21.74 (10) | |||
High (≥0.00005) | 11.76 (2) | 35.56 (64) | 32 (8) | 33.33 (7) | 33.50 (66) | 32.61 (15) | |||
YMCA centre density b | |||||||||
Low (0) | 100 (17) | 88.89 (160) | 0.226 | 92 (23) | 85.71 (18) | 0.648 | 89.85 (177) | 89.13 (41) | 0.794 |
Medium (NA) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
High (>0) | 0 | 11.11 (20) | 8 (2) | 14.29 (3) | 10.15 (20) | 10.87 (5) | |||
Private fitness and recreation sport centre density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.17) | 23.53 (4) | 41.67 (75) | 0.235 | 36 (9) | 52.38 (11) | 0.035 | 40.10 (79) | 43.48 (20) | 0.799 |
Medium (0.17–<1.56) | 41.18 (7) | 25.56 (46) | 36 (9) | 4.76 (1) | 26.90 (53) | 21.74 (10) | |||
High (≥1.56) | 35.29 (6) | 32.78 (59) | 28 (7) | 42.86 (9) | 32.99 (65) | 34.78 (16) | |||
Walking and cycling infrastructure | |||||||||
Sidewalk coverage 1 | |||||||||
Low (<1.11) | 52.94 (9) | 34.44 (62) | 0.346 | 4 (1) | 42.86 (9) | 0.027 | 36.04 (71) | 21.74 (10) | 0.027 |
Medium (1.11–<1.334) | 29.41 (5) | 35 (63) | 32 (8) | 23.81 (5) | 34.52 (68) | 28.26 (13) | |||
High (≥1.334) | 17.65 (3) | 30.56 (55) | 64 (16) | 33.33 (16) | 29.44 (58) | 50 (23) | |||
Bicycle lanes coverage 2 | |||||||||
Low (<0.05) | 11.76 (2) | 40.56 (73) | 0.013 | 8 (2) | 19.05 (4) | 0.417 | 38.07 (75) | 13.04 (6) | 0.001 |
Medium (0.05–0.12) | 23.53 (4) | 28.89 (52) | 52 (13) | 57.14 (12) | 28.43 (56) | 54.35 (25) | |||
High (≥0.12) | 64.71 (11) | 30.56 (55) | 40 (10) | 23.81 (5) | 33.50 (66) | 32.61 (15) | |||
Protected bicycle lane coverage 3 | |||||||||
Low (<0.007) | 0 | 28.89 (52) | 0.001 | 88 (22) | 90.48 (19) | 0.999 | 26.40 (52) | 89.13 (41) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.007–<0.27) | 17.65 (3) | 33.89 (61) | 12 (3) | 9.52 (2) | 32.49 (64) | 10.87 (5) | |||
High (≥0.27) | 82.35 (14) | 37.22 (67) | 0 | 0 | 41.12 (81) | 0 | |||
Food Environment | |||||||||
Food Access points | |||||||||
Supermarket and grocery stores density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.67) | 35.29 (6) | 33.33 (60) | 0.903 | 24 (6) | 42.86 (9) | 0.365 | 33.50 (66) | 32.61 (15) | 0.371 |
Medium (0.67–<1.11) | 26.41 (5) | 35.56 (64) | 32 (8) | 19.05 (4) | 35.03 (69) | 26.09 (12) | |||
High (≥1.11) | 35.29 (6) | 31.11 (56) | 44 (11) | 38.10 (8) | 31.47 (62) | 41.30 (19) | |||
Bodegas, convenience and general stores density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.08) | 52.94 (9) | 37.22 (67) | 0.132 | 12 (3) | 14.29 (3) | 0.999 | 38.58 (76) | 13.04 (6) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.08–<0.15) | 41.18 (7) | 36.67 (66) | 16 (4) | 14.29 (3) | 37.06 (73) | 15.22 (7) | |||
High (≥0.15) | 5.88 (1) | 26.11 (47) | 72 (18) | 71.43 (15) | 24.37 (48) | 71.74 (33) | |||
Food service points | |||||||||
Fast Food restaurant density b | |||||||||
Low (<0.40) | 25.53 (4) | 30.56 (55) | 0.597 | 56 (14) | 38.10 (8) | 0.151 | 29.95 (59) | 47.83 (22) | 0.075 |
Medium (0.40–<0.61) | 47.06 (8) | 33.33 (60) | 24 (6) | 33.33 (7) | 34.52 (68) | 28.26 (13) | |||
High (≥0.61) | 29.41 (5) | 36.11 (65) | 5 (20) | 28.57 (6) | 35.53 (70) | 23.91 (11) |
Dietary Behaviors | Physical Activity | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<5 Portions of F&V per Day (n = 210) | p-Value | ≥1 Portions of SSB per Day(n = 189) | p-Value | <150 min of Walking per Week (n = 116) | p-Value | <150 min of MVPA per Week 0 (n = 181) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | |||||
Net Population Density 1 | ||||||||
Low (<20,891.76) | 26.19 (55) | 0.434 | 30.16 (57) | 0.184 | 27.59 (32) | 0.876 | 22.65 (41) | 0.022 |
Medium (20,891.76–<58,532.75 | 23.33 (49) | 23.81 (45) | 20.69 (24) | 22.10 (40) | ||||
High (≥58,532.75) | 50.48 (106) | 46.03 (87) | 51.72 (60) | 55.25 (100) | ||||
Age group | ||||||||
Young (<35 years) | 57.14 (120) | 0.978 | 57.67 (109) | 0.822 | 56.90 (66) | 0.934 | 54.70 (99) | 0.271 |
Middle age (35–64 years) | 42.86 (90) | 42.33 (80) | 43.10 (50) | 45.30 (82) | ||||
Old (65+ years) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | ||||
Predominant race 2 | ||||||||
Asian | 0.00 (0) | 0.180 | 0.00 (0) | 0.771 | 0.00 (0) | 0.939 | 0.00 (0) | 0.402 |
Black | 19.52 (41) | 22.22 (42) | 24.14 (28) | 19.34 (35) | ||||
Hispanic/Latino | 2.38 (5) | 2.12 (4) | 2.59 (3) | 3.31 (6) | ||||
White | 22.86 (48) | 21.69 (41) | 19.83 (23) | 20.44 (37) | ||||
Other race 2a | 55.24 (116) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | ||||
Mixed | 53.97 (102) | 55.45 (62) | 56.91 (103) | |||||
Population living poverty 3 | ||||||||
<50% living in poverty | 61.43 (129) | 0.649 | 58.73 (111) | 0.372 | 58.62 (68) | 0.571 | 64.09 (116) | 0.121 |
≥50% living in poverty | 38.57 (81) | 41.27 (78) | 41.38 (48) | 35.91 (65) | ||||
Predominant housing type 4 | ||||||||
Single Family homes | 0.00 (0) | 0.462 | 0.00 (0) | 0.160 | 0.00 (0) | 0.679 | 0.00 (0) | 0.000 |
Row or single family attached | 14.76 (31) | 18.52 (35) | 14.66 (17) | 9.39 (17) | ||||
Duplex | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | ||||
Apartment (3+ units) | 55.71 (117) | 50.79 (96) | 57.76 (67) | 62.43 (113) | ||||
Other 4a | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | 0.00 (0) | ||||
Mixed | 29.52 (62) | 30.69 (58) | 27.59 (32) | 28.18 (51) | ||||
Population with a college degree | ||||||||
<60% with college degree | 25.71 (54) | 0.005 | 29.63 (56) | 0.669 | 32.75 (38) | 0.492 | 27.07 (49) | 0.106 |
≥60% with college degree | 74.29 (156) | 70.37 (133) | 67.24 (78) | 72.93 (132) | ||||
Housing vacancy in the neighborhood | ||||||||
Low vacancy (<7%) | 10 (21) | 0.861 | 7.94 (15) | 0.054 | 8.62 (10) | 0.560 | 13.26 (24) | 0.021 |
Medium vacancy (7–<11.15%) | 26.19 (55) | 24.34 (46) | 28.45 (33) | 29.28 (53) | ||||
High vacancy (≥11.15%) | 63.81 (134) | 67.72 (128) | 62.93 (73) | 57.46 (104) | ||||
Percentage of rented (vs. owned) housing units in the neighborhood | ||||||||
Low (<43%) | 14.76 (31) | 0.884 | 17.46 (33) | 0.068 | 12.07 (14) | 0.390 | 7.73 (14) | 0.000 |
Medium (43–<63.3%) | 44.29 (93) | 46.56 (88) | 43.97 (51) | 43.65 (79) | ||||
High (≥63.3%) | 40.95 (86) | 35.98 (68) | 43.97 (51) | 48.62 (88) |
Dietary Behaviors | Physical Activity | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<5 Portions of F&V per Day (n = 210) | p-Value | ≥1 Portions of SSB Per Day (n = 189) | p-Value | <150 min of Walking per Week (n = 116) | p-Value | <150 min of MVPA Per Week 0 (n = 181) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | |||||
Urban Design Environment | ||||||||
Land Use Mix 1 | ||||||||
Low (<0.67) | 16.67 (35) | 0.125 | 18.52 (35) | 0.542 | 22.41 (26) | 0.597 | 20.99 (38) | 0.555 |
Medium (0.67–<0.82) | 39.52 (83) | 35.98 (68) | 36.21 (42) | 38.12 (69) | ||||
High (≥0.82) | 43.81 (92) | 45.50 (86) | 41.38 (48) | 40.88 (74) | ||||
Connectivity 2 | ||||||||
Low (<269) | 21.43 (45) | 0.047 | 24.34 (46) | 0.167 | 26.72 (31) | 0.325 | 19.89 (36) | 0.017 |
Medium (269–<363.7) | 16.19 (34) | 17.99 (34) | 11.21 (13) | 14.92 (27) | ||||
High (≥363.7) | 62.38 (131) | 57.67 (109) | 62.07 (62.07) | 65.19 (118) | ||||
Walkability Index 3 | ||||||||
Low (<0.37) | 26.67 (56) | 0.038 | 31.22 (59) | 0.860 | 29.31 (34) | 0.873 | 23.20 (42) | 0.003 |
Medium (0.37–<1.41) | 25.71 (54) | 26.46 (50) | 27.59 (32) | 29.28 (53) | ||||
High (≥1.41) | 47.62 (100) | 42.33 (80) | 43.10 (50) | 47.51 (86) | ||||
Transit Stops Density a | ||||||||
Low (<22.08) | 8.10 (17) | 0.840 | 6.35 (12) | 0.472 | 9.48 (11) | 0.132 | 10.50 (199 | 0.015 |
Medium (22.08–<36.45) | 18.57 (39) | 17.99 (34) | 23.28 (27) | 20.99 (38) | ||||
High (≥36.45) | 73.33 (154) | 75.66 (143) | 67.24 (78) | 68.51 (124) | ||||
Healthcare Environment | ||||||||
Hospital density b | ||||||||
Low (0) | 6.67 (14) | 0.059 | 5.29 (10) | 0.339 | 6.90 (8) | 0.886 | 9.39 (17) | 0.008 |
Medium (>0–<0.000055) | 44.29 (93) | 46.56 (88) | 49.14 (57) | 49.17 (89) | ||||
High (≥0.000055) | 49.05 (103) | 48.15 (91) | 43.97 (51) | 41.44 (75) | ||||
Pharmacy and drug stores density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.00014) | 57.14 (120) | 0.609 | 59.26 (112) | 0.553 | 57.76 (67) | 0.978 | 53.04 (96) | 0.114 |
Medium (0.00014–<0.0003) | 14.29 (30) | 15.34 (29) | 15.52 (18) | 15.47 (28) | ||||
High (≥0.0003) | 28.57 (60) | 25.40 (48) | 26.72 (31) | 31.49 (57) | ||||
Legal Drug Environment | ||||||||
Licensed tobacco sale places density b | ||||||||
Low (0) | 65.24 (137) | 0.015 | 62.43 (118) | 0.215 | 60.34 (70) | 0.911 | 69.61 (126) | 0.000 |
Medium (>0–<0.00002) | 6.67 (14) | 7.41 (14) | 10.34 (12) | 10.50 (19) | ||||
High (≥0.00002) | 28.10 (59) | 30.16 (57) | 29.31 (34) | 19.89 (36) | ||||
Liquor stores density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.0001) | 27.62 (58) | 0.148 | 32.80 (62) | 0.310 | 29.45 (33) | 0.771 | 23.20 (42) | 0.002 |
Medium (0.0001–<0.0002) | 49.52 (104) | 47.62 (90) | 52.59 (61) | 51.93 (94) | ||||
High (≥0.0002) | 22.86 (48) | 19.58 (37) | 18.97 (22) | 24.86 (45) |
Dietary Behaviors | Physical Activity | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<5 Portions of F&V per Day (n = 210) | p-Value | ≥1 Portions of SSB per Day (n = 189) | p-Value | <150 min of Walking per Week (n = 116) | p-Value | <150 min of MVPA per Week 0 (n = 181) | p-Value | |
% (n) | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) | |||||
Physical Activity Environment | ||||||||
Public and private recreation facilities | ||||||||
Public parks density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.000211) | 65.71 (138) | 0.432 | 70.37 (133) | 0.226 | 66.38 (77) | 0.909 | 58.01 (105) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.000211–<0.00632) | 14.29 (30) | 11.64 (22) | 13.79 (16) | 16.57 (30) | ||||
High (≥0.00632) | 20 (42) | 17.99 (34) | 19.83 (23) | 25.41 (46) | ||||
Public Recreation centres density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.00002) | 29.05 (61) | 0.226 | 32.28 (61) | 0.845 | 27.59 (32) | 0.173 | 26.52 (48) | 0.029 |
Medium (0.00002–<0.00005) | 38.57 (81) | 37.04 (70) | 34.48 (40) | 40.88 (74) | ||||
High (≥0.00005) | 32.38 (68) | 30.69 (58) | 37.93 (44) | 32.60 (59) | ||||
YMCA centres density b | ||||||||
Low (0) | 95.71 (201) | 0.515 | 95.77 (181) | 0.543 | 93.10 (108) | 0.172 | 94.48 (171) | 0.456 |
Medium (NA) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
High(>0) | 4.29 (9) | 4.23 (8) | 6.90 (8) | 5.52 (10) | ||||
Private fitness and recreation sport centres density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.17) | 27.14 (57) | 0.298 | 23.34 (46) | 0.729 | 31.03 (36) | 0.141 | 24.86 (45) | 0.045 |
Medium (0.17–<1.56) | 35.71 (75) | 39.68 (75) | 33.62 (39) | 33.15 (60) | ||||
High (≥1.56) | 37.14 (78) | 35.98 (68) | 35.32 (41) | 41.99 (76) | ||||
Walking and cycling infrastructure | ||||||||
Sidewalk coverage 1 | ||||||||
Low (<1.11) | 11.43 (24) | 0.051 | 9.52 (18) | 0.433 | 12.93 (15) | 0.608 | 13.81 (25) | 0.004 |
Medium (1.11–<1.334) | 48.10 (101) | 43.39 (82) | 44.83 (52) | 48.62 (88) | ||||
High (≥1.334) | 40.48 (85) | 47.09 (89) | 42.24 (49) | 37.57 (68) | ||||
Bicycle lanes coverage 2 | ||||||||
Low (<0.05) | 5.24 (11) | 0.002 | 5.29 (10) | 0.823 | 7.76 (9) | 0.324 | 6.63 (12) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.05–.12) | 31.43 (66) | 38.62 (73) | 34.48 (40) | 28.73 (52) | ||||
High (≥0.12) | 63.33 (133) | 56.08 (106) | 57.76 (67) | 64.64 (117) | ||||
Protected bicycle lane coverage 3 | ||||||||
Low (<0.007) | 59.05 (124) | 0.157 | 62.43 (118) | 0.290 | 56.03 (65) | 0.663 | 48.07 (87) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.007–<0.27) | 10 (21) | 11.64 (22) | 12.93 (15) | 13.81 (25) | ||||
High (≥0.27) | 30.95 (65) | 25.93 (49) | 31.03 (36) | 39.12 (69) | ||||
Food Environment | ||||||||
Food Access points | ||||||||
Supermarket and grocery stores density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.67) | 18.57 (39) | 0.750 | 18.99 (34) | 0.353 | 18.97 (22) | 0.273 | 23.76 (43) | 0.061 |
Medium (0.67–<1.11) | 40.48 (85) | 42.33 (80) | 34.48 (40) | 38.12 (69) | ||||
High (≥1.11) | 40.95 (86) | 39.68 (75) | 46.55 (54) | 38.12 (69) | ||||
Bodegas, convenience and general stores density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.08) | 37.62 (79) | 0.435 | 34.92 (66) | 0.233 | 38.79 (45) | 0.634 | 44.20 (80) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.08–<0.15) | 19.05 (40) | 16.40 (31) | 17.24 (20) | 22.65 (41) | ||||
High (≥0.15) | 43.33 (91) | 48.68 (92) | 43.97 (51) | 33.15 (60) | ||||
Food service points | ||||||||
Fast Food restaurant density b | ||||||||
Low (<0.40) | 29.52 (62) | 0.987 | 33.33 (63) | 0.197 | 26.72 (31) | 0.300 | 21.55 (39) | 0.000 |
Medium (0.40–<0.61) | 39.52 (83) | 37.04 (70) | 44.83 (52) | 45.30 (82) | ||||
High (≥0.61) | 30.95 (65) | 29.63 (56) | 28.45 (33) | 33.15 (60) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Salvo, D.; Resendiz, E.; Stefancic, A.; Cabassa, L.J. Examining Place-Based Neighborhood Factors in a Multisite Peer-Led Healthy Lifestyle Effectiveness Trial for People with Serious Mental Illness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5679. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095679
Salvo D, Resendiz E, Stefancic A, Cabassa LJ. Examining Place-Based Neighborhood Factors in a Multisite Peer-Led Healthy Lifestyle Effectiveness Trial for People with Serious Mental Illness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(9):5679. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095679
Chicago/Turabian StyleSalvo, Deborah, Eugen Resendiz, Ana Stefancic, and Leopoldo J. Cabassa. 2023. "Examining Place-Based Neighborhood Factors in a Multisite Peer-Led Healthy Lifestyle Effectiveness Trial for People with Serious Mental Illness" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 9: 5679. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095679