Association between built environment and physical activity in Latin American countries: a multicentre cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the physical activity level and the built environment by accessibility, microinfrastructure and security in Latin America (LA). DESIGN: We conducted a multicentre cross-sectional study to collect physical activity and built environment data. The levels of physical activity were calculated through the International Physical Activity Questionnaire survey. Using the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale-Abbreviated, characteristics of the built environment were measured through three domains: accessibility, microinfrastructure and security. To estimate the association of the built environment and physical activity, we used mixed effects logistic regression analysis. In addition, likelihood ratio test to account for clustered effect within countries and/or cities was used. SETTING: Eight countries in LA. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 15-65 years (n=9218) living in urban areas and consented to participate of the Latin American Study of Nutrition and Health. RESULTS: Most of the population in LA had access to a grocery store (97.2%), public transport stop (91.5%) and children's playground (81.6%). Metropolitan parks were more accessible in Ecuador (59.8%) and Colombia (59.2%) than in Venezuela (33.5%). Individuals located within 20 min of walking from sport facilities or children's playground areas were more likely to perform moderate-to-high physical activity OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.36) and OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.53), respectively. Only 14.5% of the population from the region considered that their neighbourhood had an adequate design for walking or cycling. Likewise, among adults living in LA, only 39.75% had the perception of living in a safe neighbourhood. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study shows that currently, LA built environment does not promote physical activity in the region. Our findings provide the rationale to push forward, at regional and national levels, policies and interventions that will help to achieve a safe, healthy and friendly built environment to encourage participation in active recreation and sports in leisure time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02226627.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".