Advertisement

TSG

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 32–40 | Cite as

Sociaal-economische verschillen in recreatief bewegen

De rol van de fysieke en sociale leefomgeving
  • Frank J. van Lenthe
  • Carlijn B. M. Kamphuis
  • Katrina Giskes
  • Martijn Huisman
  • Johannes Brug
  • Johan P. Mackenbach
Wetenschappelijke artikelen

Samenvatting

Achtergrond: Het doel van deze studie is te bestuderen of fysieke en sociale omgevingskenmerken bijdragen aan de verklaring van sociaal-economische verschillen in wandelen en sportbeoefening onder volwassenen in Nederland. Methode: Focusgroep interviews onder mensen uit lagere en hogere sociaal-economische groepen hebben richting gegeven aan de selectie van potentieel relevante omgevingskenmerken. Percepties van zulke omgevingskenmerken zijn vervolgens geoperationaliseerd in een vragenlijst, die is verstuurd naar 10.271 mensen tussen de 25 en 74 jaar (respons 64.4%). In zeven minder en zeven meer welvarende buurten in Eindhoven zijn tevens onafhankelijke observaties verricht van de fysieke omgeving. Resultaten: Het vragenlijstonderzoek bevestigde dat mensen uit lagere sociaal-economische groepen minder recreatief bewegen. Zij rapporteerden vaker dat hun woonomgeving niet aantrekkelijk en onveilig was, dat de sociale cohesie in de buurt minder goed was, en dat zij over een kleiner sociaal netwerk in de buurt beschikten. Deze factoren verklaarden een klein deel van de sociaal-economische verschillen in sporten en in wandelen. Conclusies: Een aantrekkelijke en veilige omgeving, goede sociale cohesie en een goed sociaal netwerk in de buurt lijken een kleine bijdrage te leveren aan sociaal-economische verschillen in bewegen. Beleid gericht op de verbetering van deze omgevingskenmerken kan mogelijk ook bijdragen aan de bevordering van bewegen in lagere sociaal-economische groepen.

lichamelijke activiteit leefstijl sociaal-economische gezondheidsverschillen woonomgeving 

Abstract

Socioeconomic inequalities in sport participation and recreational walking: the role of social and physical environment

Background: It is the aim of this study to explore the contribution of characteristics of the social and physical environment to socioeconomic inequalities in sport participation and recreational walking among adults in the Netherlands. Methods: Focusgroup interviews among individuals from lower and higher socioeconomic groups provided direction to the selection of the potentially most relevant environmental characteristics. Perceptions of such characteristics were subsequently operationalised in a postal survey, which was sent to 10.271 persons aged between 25 and 74 years (respons 64.4%). Independent observations were made of the physical environment in seven of the most deprived and seven of the most affluent neighbourhoods in Eindhoven. Results: Analyses from the survey confirmed the lower prevalence of leisure time physical activity among individuals from lower socioeconomic groups. These individuals more often perceived their living environment as less attractive and unsafe, and reported lower social cohesion and a smaller social network in their neighbourhood. These factors contributed for a small part to socioeconomic inequalities in sport participation and recreational walking. Conclusions: An attractive and safe living environment, social cohesion and a good social network in the neighbourhood seem to contribute for a small amount to socioeconomic inequalities in leisure time physical activity. Policies aimed at the improvement of these environmental characteristics can perhaps contribute to the promotion of leisure time physical activity in lower socioeconomic groups.

Keywords: physical activity, life style, socioeconomic inequalities, living environment

Literatuur

  1. Droomers M, Schrijvers CT, Mheen H van de et al. Educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity: a descriptive and explanatory study. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1665-76.Google Scholar
  2. Schrijvers C, Stronks K, Mheen H van de et al. Explaining educational differences in mortality: the role of behavioral and material factors. Am J Public Health 1999;89:535-40.Google Scholar
  3. Laaksonen M, Talala K, Martelin T et al. Health behaviours as explanations for educational level differences in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: a follow-up of 60 000 men and women over 23 years. Eur J Public Health 2008;18:38-43.Google Scholar
  4. Hollander AEM, Hoeymans N, Melse J et al. Zorg voor Gezondheid. Houten: Bohn, Stafleu Van Loghum, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F et al. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2005;33:175-81.Google Scholar
  6. Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22:188-99.Google Scholar
  7. McCormack G, Giles-Corti B, Lange A et al. An update of recent evidence of the relationship between objective and self-report measures of the physical environment and physical activity behaviours. J Sci Med Sport 2004;7:81-92.Google Scholar
  8. Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E et al. Understanding environmental influences on walking; Review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med 2004;27:67-76.Google Scholar
  9. Wendel-Vos GC, Droomers M, Kremers S et al. Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews 2007;8:425-40.Google Scholar
  10. Lenthe FJ van, Brug J, Mackenbach JP. Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:763-75.Google Scholar
  11. Mackenbach JP, Mheen H van de, Stronks K. A prospective cohort study investigating the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in health in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 1994;38:299-308.Google Scholar
  12. Kamphuis CBM. Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviours: the role of environmental factors. Department of Public Health. Rotterdam: Erasmus Medical Center, 2008:287.Google Scholar
  13. Lenthe FJ van, Schrijvers CT, Droomers M et al. Investigating explanations of socio-economic inequalities in health: the Dutch GLOBE study. Eur J Public Health 2004;14:63-70.Google Scholar
  14. Kamphuis CB, Lenthe FJ van, Giskes K et al. Perceived environmental determinants of physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption among high and low socioeconomic groups in the Netherlands. Health Place, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Lenthe FJ van, Huisman M, Kamphuis CB et al. Een beoordelingsinstrument van fysieke en sociale buurtkenmerken die gezondheid stimuleren dan wel bevorderen. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH et al. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1163-9.Google Scholar
  17. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organis Behav Human Decision Processes 1991;50:179-211.Google Scholar
  18. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Eaglewoods Cliff: Erlbaum, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2006;60:290-7.Google Scholar
  21. Lenthe FJ van, Brug J, Mackenbach JP. Neighbourhood inequalities in physical inactivity: the role of neighbourhood attractiveness, proximity to local facilities and safety in the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:763-75.Google Scholar
  22. Kamphuis CBM, Lenthe FJ van, Giskes K et al. Socioeconomic differences in lack of recreational walking among older adults: the role of neighbourhood and individual factors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009;6:1.Google Scholar
  23. Kamphuis C, Mackenbach J, Giskes K et al. Why do poor people perceive poor neighbourhoods? Explaining socioeconomic differences in neighbourhood perceptions with objective neighbourhood features and psychosococial characteristics. Health & Place (aangeboden ter publicatie).Google Scholar
  24. Kamphuis CB, Lenthe FJ van, Giskes K et al. Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008;40:71-81.Google Scholar
  25. Lenthe FJ van, Kremers S, Brug J. Exploring environmental determinants of physical activity - the road to the future is always under construction. Public Health 2007;122:139.Google Scholar
  26. Sallis JF. Angels in the details: Comment on "The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors". Prev Med 2008;46:6-7.Google Scholar
  27. Lenthe FJ van, Martikainen P, Mackenbach JP. Neighbourhood inequalities in health and health-related behaviour: Results of selective migration? Health Place 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Berkman LF, Glass T. Social integration, social networks and social support and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000:137-73.Google Scholar
  29. Lindstrom M, Hanson BS, Ostergren PO. Socioeconomic differences in leisure-time physical activity: the role of social participation and social capital in shaping health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med 2001;52:441-51.Google Scholar
  30. Ball K, Timperio A, Salmon J, et al. Personal, social and environmental determinants of educational inequalities in walking: a multilevel study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:108-14.Google Scholar
  31. Maas J, Verheij RA, Spreeuwenberg P et al. Physical activity as a possible mechanism behind the relationship between green space and health: a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health 2008;8:206.Google Scholar
  32. Droomers M, Schrijvers C, Mheen H van de et al. Educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity: a descriptive and explanatory study. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1665-76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank J. van Lenthe
    • 1
  • Carlijn B. M. Kamphuis
  • Katrina Giskes
  • Martijn Huisman
  • Johannes Brug
  • Johan P. Mackenbach
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations