Likelihood of meeting physical activity guidelines in rural and urban adults: cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Community Health Survey

Comparison across age groups of causes, circumstances, and consequences of falls among individuals living in Canada: A cross-sectional analysis of participants aged 45 to 85 years from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

Falls are a leading cause of injury-related deaths and hospitalizations among Canadians. Falls risk has been reported to be increased in individuals who are older and with certain health conditions. It is unclear whether rurality is a risk factor for falls. This study aimed to investigate: 1) fall profiles by age group e.g., 45 to 54 years, 55 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, 75 to 85 years; and 2) falls profiles of individuals, by age group, living in rural versus urban areas of Canada. Data (N = 51,338) from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging was used to examine the relationship between falls and age, rurality, chronic conditions, need for medical attention, and fall characteristics (manner, location, injury). Self-reported falls within a twelve-month period occurred in only 4.8% (single fall) and 0.8% (multiple falls) of adults. Falls were not related to rural residence or age, but those with memory impairment, multiple sclerosis, as well as other chronic conditions such as mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and hyperthyroidism not often thought to be associated with falls, were also more likely to fall. Older individuals were more likely to fall indoors or fall while standing or walking. In contrast, middle-aged individuals were more likely to fall outdoors or while exercising. Type of injury was not associated with age, but older individuals were more likely to report hospitalization after a fall. This study shows that falls occur with a similar frequency in individuals regardless of age or urban/rural residence. Age was associated with fall location and activity. A more universally applicable multi-facted approach, rather than one solely based on older age considerations, to screening, primary prevention and management may reduce the personal, social, and economic burden of falls and fall-related injuries.

Work, travel, or leisure: comparing domain-specific physical activity patterns based on rural-urban location in Canada

BACKGROUND

Physical activity occurs across various domains including leisure/recreation, for transportation, or for work or household reasons. Rural and urban active living environments are characterized by different opportunities for physical activity within each domain which may translate into different patterns of behavior. The aim of this study was to compare rural-urban differences in physical activity across different domains, and explore interactions between sociodemographic factors, physical activity domains, and rurality.

METHODS

We used self-reported data collected across three physical activity domains (active transportation, recreation, occupational/household) and relevant sociodemographic variables from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, we did two separate cross-sectional analyses: 1) binary logistic regression to determine the odds of reporting any activity in each domain, and 2) ordinary least squares regression using the sub-samples reporting > 0 min per week of activity to compare how much activity was reported in each domain.

RESULTS

Our final survey weighted sample of Canadian adults (mean age 47.4 years) was n = 25,669,018 (unweighted n = 47,266). Rural residents were less likely to report any active transportation (OR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.51, 0.67], p < .0001). For recreational physical activity, rural males had lower odds (OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.67, 0.83], p < .0001) and rural females had higher odds (OR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.08, 1.30], p = .0002) of reporting any participation compared to urban residents. Rural males (OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.74, 2.07], p < .0001) and females (OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.21, 1.46], p < .0001) had higher odds of reporting any occupational or household physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Urban residents tend to participate in more active transportation, while rural residents participate in more occupational or household physical activity. Location-based differences in physical activity are best understood by examining multiple domains and must include appropriate sociodemographic interactions, such as income and sex/gender.

Physical activity promotion in rural health care settings: A rapid realist review

•

Rural communities have a unique health care and physical activity context.

•

We conducted a rapid realist review in partnership with knowledge users.

•

Check-ins from health care providers may lead to intervention success and are valued by participants.

•

A method for tracking progress is an important component of interventions delivered in rural health care settings.

Physical activity promotion in health care settings is poorly understood and has limited uptake among health care providers. The environmental and health care context of rural communities is unique from urban areas and may interact to influence intervention delivery and success. The aim of this rapid realist review was to synthesize knowledge related to the promotion of physical activity in rural health and social care settings. We searched Medline EBSCO, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus for relevant publications. We included qualitative or quantitative studies reporting on an intervention to promote physical activity in rural health (e.g., primary or community care) or social (e.g., elder support services) care settings. Studies without a rural focus or well-defined physical activity/exercise component were excluded. Populations of interest included adults and children in the general population or clinical sub-population. Intervention mechanisms from included studies were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel (capability, opportunity, motivation (COM-B)). Twenty studies were included in our review. Most interventions focused on older adults or people with chronic disease risk factors. The most successful intervention strategies leading to increased physical activity behaviour included wearable activity trackers, and check-ins or reminders from trusted sources. Interventions with mechanisms categorized as physical opportunity, automatic motivation, and psychological capability were more likely to be successful than other factors of the COM-B model. Successful intervention activities included a method for tracking progress, providing counselling, and follow-up reminders to prompt behaviour change. Cultivation of necessary community partnerships and adaptations for implementation of interventions in rural communities were not clearly described and may support successful outcomes in future studies.

A Comparison of Meeting Physical Activity and Screen Time Recommendations between Canadian Youth Living in Rural and Urban Communities: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Analysis

Meeting the physical activity (PA) and recreational screen time recommendations for children and young people is associated with several health benefits. The purpose of this study was to compare the odds of meeting PA and recreational screen time recommendations between the Canadian youth living in urban versus rural communities. We analyzed nationally representative cross-sectional data collected as part of the 2017–2018 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey among young people aged 12–17 years. PA and screen time were self-reported. Sex-specific multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of meeting individual and combined PA and recreational screen time recommendations by rural and urban status after adjusting for individual, socioeconomic, and seasonal covariates. The odds of meeting the PA recommendation were not statistically significantly different among males (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86–1.18) or females (OR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99–1.11) living in urban versus rural communities. The odds of meeting the recreational screen time recommendations were statistically significantly lower among male (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65–0.77) and female (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59–0.86) youth living in urban compared to those in rural communities. The odds of meeting the combined PA and screen time recommendations were statistically significantly lower among urban males (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.71–0.81) but not females (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.58–1.15) than those from rural communities. These findings suggest that residential context (i.e., urban versus rural) may have a differential impact on meeting the combined PA and screen time recommendations among the male and female Canadian youth. Future research should investigate these differences using device-based measures.

Barriers to physical activity for adults in rural and urban Canada: A cross-sectional comparison

Background

Individual differences in physical activity behavior are associated with a collection of individual and environmental factors manifesting as barriers to participation. Understanding how barriers to physical activity differ based on sociodemographic characteristics can support identification and elimination of health inequities.

Objectives

To compare the odds of reporting individual and environmental barriers to physical activity in rural and urban adults, and explore interactions between rural-urban location and sociodemographic factors to characterize patterns in barriers to physical activity.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Methods

We analyzed the 2017 Canadian Community Health Survey Barriers to Physical Activity Rapid Response, with a final weighted sample of 24,499,462 (unweighted n=21,967). The likelihood of reporting each barrier domain based on rural-urban location was examined using binary logistic regression following a model-fitting approach with sociodemographic characteristics as covariates or interaction terms.

Results

Adjusting for sociodemographic factors, rural residents showed 85% higher odds of reporting at least one social or built environmental barrier (OR=1.85 [1.66, 2.07]). Compared to urban residents, rural residents showed significantly higher odds of reporting barriers to facility access (OR=4.15 [3.58, 4.83]) and a lack of social support to be active (OR=1.17 [1.04, 1.32]). Urban residents reported lower preference for physical activity, lower enjoyment of physical activity and lower confidence in their ability to regularly engage in physical activity. Interactions between socioeconomic status and location were identified related to enjoyment and confidence to be active. There was no effect of location on predicting the odds of reporting an individual resource-related variable (e.g., time, energy).

Conclusions

Despite being more likely than urban residents to prefer and enjoy physical activity, rural residents have fewer opportunities and receive less social support to be active. It is important to consider geographic location when characterizing barriers to physical activity and in the development of context-specific health promotion strategies.

•

Rural residents have a higher odds of reporting social or built environmental barriers to physical activity.

•

The most common environmental barrier for rural residents was lack of access to free or low-cost facilities.

•

Urban residents reported a lower preference and enjoyment of physical activity.

•

There was no rural-urban location-based difference in barriers related to time or costs to be active.

•

It is important to consider geographic location and sex when characterising barriers to physical activity.