Caminhabilidade e Envelhecimento Saudável: Uma Proposta de Análise Para Cidades Brasileiras de Pequeno e Médio Porte

Por: Aline Siqueira Fogal Vegi, Andréia Queiroz Ribeiro, Elpídio Inácio Fernandes Filho, Karla Lisboa Ramos e Milene Cristine Pessoa.

Cadernos de Saúde Pública - v.36 - n.3 - 2020

Send to Kindle


Resumo

Há evidências de que ambientes urbanos que desestimulam a caminhada contribuem para a incapacidade funcional de idosos. Vários índices foram propostos para descrever a caminhabilidade de uma área combinando aspectos do ambiente construído que promovem ou inibem a caminhada. No entanto, devido a problemas de qualidade e disponibilidade de dados no Brasil, até o momento não há um índice de caminhabilidade aplicável a todas as cidades do país e devidamente testado na população. O objetivo deste estudo foi propor um índice de caminhabilidade baseado em sistemas de informação geográfica para uma cidade de médio porte, com dados de livre acesso, bem como testar sua associação com a incapacidade funcional em idosos. Foram usados os dados da área urbana de um município de médio porte para selecionar um conjunto parcimonioso de variáveis por meio de análise fatorial. O índice obtido foi testado em relação à sua associação com a capacidade para a realização de atividades de vida diária que requerem maior movimentação, em 499 idosos utilizando equações de estimativas generalizadas. O índice de caminhabilidade resultante foi composto por densidade residencial, densidade comercial, conectividade de ruas, presença de calçadas e iluminação pública. Essas variáveis compuseram o primeiro fator da análise fatorial, excluindo-se apenas a arborização que ficou retida no segundo fator. Verificou-se que o pior escore de caminhabilidade estava associado ao maior escore de incapacidade funcional. Com base nos resultados e na validação deles, o estudo sugere um índice de caminhabilidade facilmente aplicável com grande potencial de uso em planos de ação para adequar os ambientes.

REFERÊNCIAS

1. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. [ Links ]

2. Tuckett AG, Banchoff AW, Winter SJ, King AC. The built environment and older adults: a literature review and an applied approach to engaging older adults in built environment improvements for health. Int J Older People Nurs 2017; 13:e12171. [ Links ]

3. Clarke P, Nieuwenhuijsen ER. Environments for healthy ageing: a critical review. Maturitas 2009; 64:14-9. [ Links ]

4. Organização Mundial da Saúde. Guia global: cidade amiga do idoso. Geneva: Organização Mundial da Saúde; 2008. [ Links ]

5. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Acción multisectorial para un envejecimiento saludable basado en el ciclo de vida: proyecto de estrategia y plan de acción mundiales sobre el envejecimiento y la salud. 69ª Asamblea Mundial de la Salud. Geneva: Organización Mundial de la Salud; 2016. [ Links ]

6. World Health Organization. Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. [ Links ]

7. Van Holle V, Van Cauwenberg J, Van Dyck D, Deforche B, Van de Weghe N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Relationship between neighborhood walkability and older adults' physical activity: results from the Belgian Environmental Physical Activity Study in Seniors (BEPAS Seniors). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014; 11:110. [ Links ]

8. Frank LD, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Leary L, Cain K, Conway TL, et al. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44:924-33. [ Links ]

9. Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc 2010; 76:265-94. [ Links ]

10. Siqueira Reis R, Hino AAF, Ricardo Rech C, Kerr J, Curi Hallal P. Walkability and physical activity: findings from Curitiba, Brazil. Am J Prev Med 2013; 45:269-75. [ Links ]

11. Hajna S, Ross NA, Brazeau AS, Bélisle P, Joseph L, Dasgupta K. Associations between neighbourhood walkability and daily steps in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2015; 15:768. [ Links ]

12. Barnett DW, Barnett A, Nathan A, Van Cauwenberg J, Cerin E; Council on Environment and Physical Activity (CEPA) - Older Adults Working Group. Built environmental correlates of older adults' total physical activity and walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017; 14:103. [ Links ]

13. Van Cauwenberg J, Nathan A, Barnett A, Barnett DW, Cerin E, Council on Environment and Physical Activity (CEPA) - Older Adults Working Group. Relationships between neighbourhood physical environmental attributes and older adults' leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport Med 2018; 48:1635-60. [ Links ]

14. King A, Sallis JJF, Frank LD, Saelens BBE, Cain KL, Conway TL, et al. Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income: associations with physical activity and obesity in older adults. Soc Sci Med 2011; 73:1525-33. [ Links ]

15. Berke EM, Koepsell TD, Moudon AV, Hoskins RE, Larson EB. Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. Am J Public Health 2007; 97:486-92. [ Links ]

16. Chor D, Cardoso LO, Nobre AA, Griep RH, Fonseca MJM, Giatti L, et al. Association between perceived neighbourhood characteristics, physical activity and diet quality: results of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). BMC Public Health 2016; 16:751. [ Links ]

17. Carr LJ, Dunsiger SI, Marcus BH. Walk scoreTM as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. Am J Prev Med 2010; 39:460-3. [ Links ]

18. Maghelal PKP, Capp CJ. Walkability: a review of existing pedestrian indices. J Urban Reg Inf Syst Assoc 2011; 23:5-19. [ Links ]

19. Shashank A, Schuurman N. Unpacking walkability indices and their inherent assumptions. Health Place 2019; 55:145-54. [ Links ]

20. Vale DS, Saraiva M, Pereira M. Active accessibility: a review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. J Transp Land Use 2016; 9:209-35. [ Links ]

21. Glazier RH, Weyman JT, Creatore MI, Gozdyra P, Moineddin R, Matheson FI, et al. Development and validation of an urban walkability index for Toronto, Canada. Toronto: Toronto Community Health Profiles Partnership; 2013. [ Links ]

22. Giles-Corti B, Mavoa S, Eagleson S, Davern M, Roberts R, Badland H. How walkable is Melbourne? The development of a transport walkability index for metropolitan Melbourne. Melbourne: University of Melbourne; 2015. [ Links ]

23. Millington C, Ward Thompson C, Rowe D, Aspinall P, Fitzsimons C, Nelson N, et al. Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). Health Place 2009; 15:474-81. [ Links ]

24. Stockton JC, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E, Mindell JS, Brunner EJ, Shelton NJ. Development of a novel walkability index for London, United Kingdom: cross-sectional application to the Whitehall II Study. BMC Public Health 2016; 16:416. [ Links ]

25. Lopes AAS, Kienteka M, Fermino RC, Reis RS. Characteristics of the environmental microscale and walking and bicycling for transportation among adults in Curitiba, Paraná State, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública 2018; 34:e00203116. [ Links ]

26. Tian G, Ewing R. A walk trip generation model for Portland, OR. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2017; 52:340-53. [ Links ]

27. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Demográfico 2010. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2010. [ Links ]

28. Silva AR, Carmo MI, Alvarenga SC, Cruz TA. Retrato social de Viçosa III. Viçosa: CENSUS; 2010. [ Links ]

29. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Metodologia do Censo Demográfico 2010. Relatórios metodológicos. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2013. [ Links ]

30. Laros JA. O uso da análise fatorial: algumas diretrizes para pesquisadores. In: Pasquali L, editor. Análise fatorial para pesquisadores. Brasília: LabPAM Saber e Tecnologia; 2012. p. 141-60. [ Links ]

31. Nascimento CDM, Ribeiro AQ, Cotta RMM, Acurcio FDA, Peixoto SV, Priore SE, et al. Factors associated with functional ability in Brazilian elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2012; 54:e89-94. [ Links ]

32. Lange C, Silverman EK, Xu X, Weiss ST, Laird NM. A multivariate family-based association test using generalized estimating equations: FBAT-GEE. Biostatistics 2003; 4:195-206. [ Links ]

33. Health Council of The Netherlands Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning Nature and the Environment. Nature and health: the influence of nature on social, psychological and physical well-being. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands/RMNO; 2004. [ Links ]

34. Sarkar C, Webster C, Pryor M, Tang D, Melbourne S, Zhang X, et al. Exploring associations between urban green, street design and walking: results from the Greater London boroughs. Landsc Urban Plan 2015; 143:112-25. [ Links ]

35. Cervero R, Duncan M. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:1478-83. [ Links ]

36. Sehatzadeh B, Noland RB, Weiner MD. Walking frequency, cars, dogs, and the built environment. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 2011; 45:741-54. [ Links ]

37. Wells NM, Yang Y. Neighborhood design and walking. A quasi-experimental longitudinal study. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34:313-9. [ Links ]

38. Oakes JM, Forsyth A, Schmitz KH. The effects of neighborhood density and street connectivity on walking behavior: The Twin Cities walking study. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2007; 4:16. [ Links ]

39. Berrigan D, Pickle LW, Dill J. Associations between street connectivity and active transportation. Int J Health Geogr 2010; 9:20. [ Links ]

40. Li F, Fisher KJ, Brownson RC, Bosworth M. Multilevel modelling of built environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005; 59:558-64. [ Links ]

41. Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank LD, Owen N, Bauman AE, Hugo G. Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place 2007; 13:111-22. [ Links ]

42. Loukaitou-Sideris A. Is it safe to walk? Neighborhood safety and security considerations and their effects on walking. J Plan Lit 2006; 20:219-32. [ Links ]

43. Van Cauwenberg J, Clarys P, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Holle V, Verte D, De Witte N, et al. Older adults' transportation walking: a cross-sectional study on the cumulative influence of physical environmental factors. Int J Health Geogr 2013; 12:37. [ Links ]

44. Meeder M, Aebi T, Weidmann U. The influence of slope on walking activity and the pedestrian modal share. Transportation Research Procedia 2017; 27:141-7. [ Links ]

45. Rodríguez DA, Joo J. The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2004; 9:151-73. [ Links ]

46. Lee C, Moudon AV. Correlates of walking for transportation or recreation purposes. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3(s1):S77-98. [ Links ]

47. Glazier RH, Creatore MI, Weyman JT, Fazli G, Matheson FI, Gozdyra P, et al. Density, destinations or both? A comparison of measures of walkability in relation to transportation behaviors, obesity and diabetes in Toronto, Canada. PLoS One 2014; 9:e85295. [ Links ]

48. Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH, Hearst M. Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Stud 2007; 44:679-97. [ Links ]

49. Rodríguez DA, Evenson KR, Diez Roux AV, Brines SJ. Land use, residential density, and walking. The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Prev Med 2009; 37:397-404. [ Links ]

50. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. Improved street lighting and crime prevention. Justice Q 2002; 19:313-42. [ Links ]

51. Haans A, de Kort YAW. Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. J Environ Psychol 2012; 32:342-52. [ Links ]

52. Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36(4 Suppl):S99-123.e12. [ Links ]

53. Shay E, Rodriguez DA, Cho G, Clifton KJ, Evenson KR. Comparing objective measures of environmental supports for pedestrian travel in adults. Int J Health Geogr 2009; 8:62. [ Links ]

54. Landis BW, Vattikuti VR, Ottenberg RM, McLeod DS, Guttenplan M. Modeling the roadside walking environment: pedestrian level of service. Transp Res Rec 2001; 1773:82-8. [ Links ]

55. Frackelton A, Grossman A, Palinginis E, Castrillon F, Elango V. Measuring walkability: development of an automated sidewalk quality assessment tool. Suburban Sustainability 2013; 1:4. [ Links ]

56. Dumbaugh E. Designing communities to enhance the safety and mobility of older adults. J Plan Lit 2008; 23:17-36. [ Links ]

57. McGinn AP, Evenson KR, Herring AH, Huston SL, Rodriguez DA. Exploring associations between physical activity and perceived and objective measures of the built environment. J Urban Health 2007; 84:162-84. [ Links ]

58. Christian H, Bull FCL, Middleton NJ, Knuiman M, Divitini ML, Hooper P, et al. How important is the land use mix measure in understanding walking behaviour? Results from the Reside study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:55. [ Links ]

59. Chum A, Atkinson P, O'Campo P. Does time spent in the residential neighbourhood moderate the relationship between neighbourhood walkability and transport-related walking? A cross-sectional study from Toronto, Canada. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e023598. [ Links ]

60. Kerr J, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cerin E, Sugiyama T, et al. Advancing science and policy through a coordinated international study of physical activity and built environments: IPEN adult methods. J Phys Act Health 2013; 10:581-601. [ Links ]

61. Salvo D, Reis RS, Sarmiento OL, Pratt M. Overcoming the challenges of conducting physical activity and built environment research in Latin America: IPEN Latin America. Prev Med (Baltim) 2014; 69:S86-92. [ Links ]

62. Motomura MCN, Fontoura LC, Kanashiro M. Understanding walkable areas: applicability and analysis of a walkability index in a Brazilian city. Ambiente Construído 2018; 18:413-25. [ Links ]

63. Rosso AL, Auchincloss AH, Michael YLY. The urban built environment and mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review. J Aging Res 2011; 2011:816106. [ Links ]

64. Verbrugge LML, Jette AMA. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38:1-14. [ Links ]

65. Santos AP, Rocha SF, Abreu MVS, Calijuri ML, Santos PM. O uso da análise multicritério no mapeamento da fragilidade social da área urbanizada do Município de Viçosa-MG. Revista Brasileira de Cartografia 2012; 64:635-43. [ Links ]

66. Kestens Y, Chaix B, Gerber P, Desprès M, Gauvin L, Klein O, et al. Understanding the role of contrasting urban contexts in healthy aging: an international cohort study using wearable sensor devices (the CURHA study protocol). BMC Geriatr 2016; 16:96. [ Links ]

67. Zadra JR, Clore GL. Emotion and perception: the role of affective information. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2011; 2:676-85. [ Links ]

68. Ministério da Cidadania. Estratégia Brasil Amigo da Pessoa Idosa: introdução à estratégia. Brasília: Ministério da Cidadania; 2019. [ Links ]

Endereço: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2020000305005&tlng=pt

Comentários


:-)





© 1996-2020 Centro Esportivo Virtual - CEV.
O material veiculado neste site poderá ser livremente distribuído para fins não comerciais, segundo os termos da licença da Creative Commons.