NewsScientific Publications
27 de marzo de 2024

Multi-use physical activity trails in an urban setting and cardiovascular disease

Today we bring you a scientific article that serves as an example and precedent of what we from Horus intend. The relationship between NCD’s and the urban environment exists and needs in-depth studies that allow to carry out its conclusions to public planning and policies.
Let’s see what this article talks about:
.
.
.

Multi-use physical activity trails in an urban setting and cardiovascular disease: a difference-in-differences analysis of a natural experiment in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (2022)

McGavock, J., Hobin, E., Prior, H. J., Swanson, A., Smith, B. T., Booth, G. L., … & Burchill, C

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 19 (1), 34.

.

.

Background:
The research builds on the premise that multi-use trails offer a viable solution for encouraging active lifestyles within urban populations. Authors highlight the inherent challenges of randomised clinical trials and the previous shortcomings of natural experimentation methods in assessing the impact of the built environment on health outcomes.
Objectives:
To determine if the expansion of multi-use physical activity trails in an urban centre (Winnipeg, Canada) is associated with reduced rates of incident CVD events – CVD-related mortality, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular events and congestive heart failure – and CVD risk factors – hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia -.
Design:
  • Data: Administrative health, census and built environment data.
  • Intervention: Building of four multi-use trails, 2010-2012.
  • Population: Winnipeg residents aged 30 years and older.
  • Outcomes: Major CVD events and risk factors.
  • Method: Difference-in-differences analysis with propensity score matching.
  • Citizen participation: in all phases of the study.
  • Protocol study:at clinicaltrials.gov

Results:

Trail use: Most users (over 85%) travelled less than 15 minutes to access the trail.
Comparison between intervention and control ( 400 m buffer):
  • CVD events: In intervention areas the incidence rate was a non-significant 6% higher compared to control areas (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.90, 1.24], p = 0.51).
  • CVD risk factors: In intervention areas the incidence rate was a non-significant 8% lower compared to control areas (IRR = 0.92, 95% CI[0.84, 1.02], p = 0.10).
  • Sensitivity: In areas near the longest and most used trail (400 m buffer), the incidence rate of CVD risk factors was 15% lower compared to control areas (IRR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75, 0.96]).
.
.