Objective: The Social Ecological Model (SEM) has been used to describe the aetiology of childhood obesity and to develop a framework for prevention. The current paper applies the SEM to data collected at multiple levels, representing different layers of the SEM, and examines the unique and relative contribution of each layer to children's weight status.
Design: Cross-sectional survey of randomly selected households with children living in low-income diverse communities.
Setting: A telephone survey conducted in 2009-2010 collected information on parental perceptions of their neighbourhoods, and household, parent and child demographic characteristics. Parents provided measured height and weight data for their children. Geocoded data were used to calculate proximity of a child's residence to food and physical activity outlets.
Subjects: Analysis based on 560 children whose parents participated in the survey and provided measured heights and weights.
Results: Multiple logistic regression models were estimated to determine the joint contribution of elements within each layer of the SEM as well as the relative contribution of each layer. Layers of the SEM representing parental perceptions of their neighbourhoods, parent demographics and neighbourhood characteristics made the strongest contributions to predicting whether a child was overweight or obese. Layers of the SEM representing food and physical activity environments made smaller, but still significant, contributions to predicting children's weight status.
Conclusions: The approach used herein supports using the SEM for predicting child weight status and uncovers some of the most promising domains and strategies for childhood obesity prevention that can be used for designing interventions.
Background: To identify social ecological correlates of objectively measured workplace sedentary behavior.
Methods: Participants from 24 worksites - across academic, industrial, and government sectors - wore an activPAL-micro accelerometer for 7-days (Jan-Nov 2016). Work time was segmented using daily logs. Sedentary behavior outcomes included time spent sitting, standing, in light intensity physical activity (LPA, stepping cadence <100 steps/min), and in prolonged sitting bouts (>30 min). Outcomes were standardized to an 8 h work day. Two electronic surveys were completed to derive individual (job type and work engagement), cultural (lunch away from the desk, walking at lunch and face-to-face interaction), physical (personal printer and office type) and organizational (sector) factors. Mixed-model analyses with worksite-level clustering were performed to examine multi-level associations. Secondary analyses examined job type and sector as moderators of these associations. All models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity and gender.
Results: Participants (N = 478; 72% female; age: 45.0 ± 11.3 years; 77.8% non-Hispanic white) wore the activPAL-micro for 90.2 ± 15.5% of the reported workday. Walking at lunch was positively associated with LPA (5.0 ± 0.5 min/8 h, P < 0.001). Regular face-to-face interaction was negatively associated with prolonged sitting (−11.3 ± 4.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05). Individuals in private offices sat more (20.1 ± 9.1 min/8 h, P < 0.05), stood less (−21.5 ± 8.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05), and engaged in more prolonged sitting (40.9 ± 11.2 min/8 h, P < 0.001) than those in public office space. These associations were further modified by job type and sector.
Conclusions: Work-specific individual, cultural, physical and organizational factors are associated with workplace sedentary behavior. Associations vary by job type and sector and should be considered in the design of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior.