The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #58395

David Berrigan, PhD MPH¹, Richard P. Troiano, PhD¹, Timothy McNeel², Charles DiSogra, DrPH³, and Rachel Ballard-Barbash, MD, MPH⁴. (1) Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7335, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5251, berrigad@mail.nih.gov, (2) Information Management Services, 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 200, Silver Spring, MD 20904, (3) UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 10911 Weyburn Avenue, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, (4) Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North MSC 7344, Room 4009A, Bethesda, MD 20892

Despite many health benefits of physical activity (PA), reports suggest that only about half of US adults adhere to PA recommendations and adherence is lower in women, the elderly, less educated/lower income groups, and some minority populations. These apparent differences could be due to inverse associations between leisure and non-leisure time PA (LTPA). This study reports the prevalence of adherence to PA recommendations with and without the inclusion of non-leisure time walking and bicycling (NLTWB) using the 2001 California Health Interview Survey (n=54,344). We categorized adherence (150 minutes/week of moderate PA, 60 minutes/week of vigorous PA, or a combination totaling 150 minutes/week) with respect to LTPA, NLTWB, or both activities. Walking and bicycling were classified as moderate. Higher levels of LTPA were found among males, Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic whites, and people that were younger, more educated, or had higher incomes. Inclusion of NLTWB reduced these differences with respect to gender, age, race/ethnicity, education and income. For example, odds ratios from logistic regression comparing adherence in respondents with > HS education vs. < HS education (referent) changed from 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) to 1.8 (1.7-2.0) after inclusion of NLTWB and changed from 2.8 (2.5-3.0) to 1.5 (1.4-1.6) in comparisons of people with household incomes ³300% of the Federal Poverty Level vs. incomes <100% of the FPL. Inclusion of NLTWB also reduced differences in adherence among race/ethnic groups but had smaller effects on age, gender and urban/rural differences. These results highlight the importance of more complete measurements of PA.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this presentation the audience will be able to:
• Describe the assessment of physical activity in the 2001 California Health Interview Survey.
• Discuss the prevalence of leisure time physical activity and non-leisure time walking and bicycling in California and understand the extent of tradeoffs between these two kinds of activity.
• Evaluate whether or not non-leisure time physical activity is important for studies of physical activity and health.

Keywords: Physical Activity, Social Inequalities

Presenting author's disclosure statement: