The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods

MOspace/Manakin Repository

Breadcrumbs Navigation

The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13

[-] show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lee, Rebecca E
dc.contributor.author Booth, Katie M
dc.contributor.author Reese-Smith, Jacqueline Y
dc.contributor.author Regan, Gail
dc.contributor.author Howard, Hugh H
dc.date.accessioned 2012-08-29T15:29:00Z
dc.date.available 2012-08-29T15:29:00Z
dc.date.issued 2005-09-14
dc.identifier.citation International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2005 Sep 14;2(1):13
dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10355/15058
dc.description.abstract Abstract Background Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources. Method The one-page Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument was developed to assess all publicly available PA resources in thirteen urban lower income, high ethnic minority concentration neighborhoods that surrounded public housing developments (HDs) and four higher income, low ethnic minority concentration comparison neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had similar population density and connectivity. Trained field coders rated 97 PA resources (including parks, churches, schools, sports facilities, fitness centers, community centers, and trails) on location, type, cost, features, amenities, quality and incivilities. Assessments typically took about 10 minutes to complete. Results HD neighborhoods had a mean of 4.9 PA resources (n = 73) with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. Comparison neighborhoods had a mean of 6 resources (n = 24). Most resources were accessible at no cost (82%). Resources in both types of neighborhoods typically had about 2 to 3 PA features and amenities, and the quality was usually mediocre to good in both types of neighborhoods. Incivilities at PA resources in HD neighborhoods were significantly more common than in comparison neighborhoods. Conclusion Although PA resources were similar in number, features and amenities, the overall appearance of the resources in HD neighborhoods was much worse as indicated by substantially worse incivilities ratings in HD neighborhoods. The more comprehensive assessment, including features, amenities and incivilities, provided by the PARA may be important to distinguish between PA resources in lower and higher deprivation areas.
dc.title The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: Evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2012-08-29T15:29:00Z
dc.description.version Peer Reviewed
dc.language.rfc3066 en
dc.rights.holder Rebecca E Lee et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

[-] show simple item record