Adolescent Physical Activity: Moderation of Individual Factors by Neighborhood Environment

Abstract

Introduction Less than a third of U.S. adolescents meet federal physical activity (PA) guidelines. Understanding correlates of PA at multiple levels of the Social Ecological Model could improve PA interventions among youth. This study examines: (1) associations between factors across the Social Ecological Model including psychosocial factors, perceived neighborhood physical and social environment characteristics, and adolescent moderate/vigorous PA (MVPA); and (2) whether perceived neighborhood characteristics moderate associations between psychosocial factors and MVPA. Methods A national sample of adolescents (aged 12–17 years) in the 2014 Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study was used to examine associations between psychosocial characteristics, perceived neighborhood social and physical characteristics, and self-reported weekly minutes of MVPA. Analyses were conducted in 2015. Interaction terms between psychosocial and neighborhood variables were added to multiple linear regression models to examine moderation hypotheses. Results Significant two-way interactions revealed that neighborhoods with features perceived as supportive of PA strengthened several psychosocial–MVPA associations. The positive associations between MVPA and friend norms, friend support, and attitudes were strengthened for adolescents living in neighborhoods with high versus low PA resource availability (all p<0.05). Furthermore, the association between controlled and autonomous motivation and MVPA was strengthened under conditions of shops/stores near (versus distant from) adolescents’ homes (p<0.05). Conclusions The association between some psychosocial factors and adolescent MVPA may be environment dependent. Neighborhood physical and social environments supportive of PA are important to consider when developing targeted PA interventions, and may strengthen the association between psychosocial-level factors and adolescent MVPA.

Where and when adolescents are physically active: Neighborhood environment and psychosocial correlates and their interactions

“…One study found that among adolescents living in activity-supportive neighborhoods (e.g., high access to activity resources), there were stronger positive associations between psychosocial factors and physical activity. 19 In contrast, living in a less walkable neighborhood may contribute to male adolescents’ perceived barriers and motivate them to seek physical activity opportunities outside their neighborhood. Males with high decisional balance living in high walkable neighborhoods may also be from high SES households and have parents that model or encourage physical activity and sports beyond the neighborhood.…”

“…17–19 One study found interactions between several psychosocial factors (e.g., social support and friend norms) and physical activity resource availability in relation to adolescent MVPA, with stronger positive associations found among those in neighborhoods with high vs. low resource availability. 19 However, an important limitation of previous research is the assumption that most of adolescents’ physical activity occurs in the neighborhood. No study that we are aware of has examined environment-psychosocial interactions in relation to context-specific physical activity.…”

Where children play most: physical activity levels of school children across four settings and policy implications

“…In free time, personal choice becomes a stronger factor and strategies enabling access to equipment and areas that allow unstructured physical activity can help children and adolescents be more active 44,45 . This may be particularly important for children living in low‐income areas, for whom free time PA represents about half of total PA.…”

Unpacking our limitations: The complexity of multilevel influences on behaviour

“…For example, an examination of the literature on diet and physical activity barriers highlights a framework whereby a supportive physical environment fosters higher levels of interpersonal and individual-level support and in turn healthier behaviours (Caspi, Sorensen, Subramanian, & Kawachi, 2012;D'Angelo, Fowler, Nebeling, & Oh, 2017;Dean & Sharkey, 2011;Dwyer, Patel, Nebeling, & Oh, 2018). …”