Search

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing mass disruption to our daily lives. We integrate mobility data from mobile devices and area-level data to study the walking patterns of 1.62 million anonymous users in 10 metropolitan areas in the United States. The data covers the period from mid-February 2020 (pre-lockdown) to late June 2020 (easing of lockdown restrictions). We detect when users were walking, distance walked and time of the walk, and classify each walk as recreational or utilitarian. Our results reveal dramatic declines in walking, particularly utilitarian walking, while recreational walking has recovered and even surpassed pre-pandemic levels. Our findings also demonstrate important social patterns, widening existing inequalities in walking behavior. COVID-19 response measures have a larger impact on walking behavior for those from low-income areas and high use of public transportation. Provision of equal opportunities to support walking is key to opening up our society and economy. Mobility restrictions implemented to reduce the spread of COVID-19 have significantly impacted walking behavior. In this study, the authors integrated mobility data from mobile devices and area-level data to study the walking patterns of 1.62 million anonymous users in 10 US metropolitan areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: To prevent obesity among Latino youth in the United States and Latin America, it is necessary to understand the specific context and interplay of physical activity (PA) and the built environment (BE). This paper aims to advance the research agenda of BE and PA for obesity prevention in Latin America and among Latino youth in the United States by (1) identifying environmental indicators to inform the design of interventions and policy, (2) identifying interdisciplinary methodological approaches for the study of the complex association between BE and PA, and (3) presenting case studies of PA‐promoting BE programs. A group of U.S. and Latin American scientists collaboratively worked to propose innovative indicators of the BE, methodological approaches for the study of the complex association between BE and PA, and review case studies of PA‐promoting BE programs in both regions. The results identified gaps in knowledge, proposed environmental indicators (e.g., landscape, street design, mobility patterns, and crime and safety), reviewed methodological approaches (social network analysis, citizen science methods), and case studies illustrating PA‐promoting BE programs (i.e., play streets, active school transport, and school setting interventions). The obesity prevention among Latino and Latin American youth requires advanced research on BE and PA addressing context‐specific priorities and exchanging lessons learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer's perspective. Methods Employees used a 'loyalty card' to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates. Results The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Conclusions The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer's perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable "business model" which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Financial incentives have been advocated by the UK and U.S. governments to encourage adoption of healthy lifestyles. However, evidence to support the use of incentives for changing physical activity (PA) behavior is sparse. Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness of financial incentives to increase PA in adults in the workplace. Design: Two-arm quasi-experimental design. Setting/participants: Employees (n=406) in a workplace setting in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Intervention: Using a loyalty card to collect points and earn rewards, participants (n=199) in the Incentive Group monitored their PA levels and received financial incentives (retail vouchers) for minutes of PA completed over the course of a 12-week intervention period. Participants (n=207) in the comparison group used their loyalty card to self-monitor their PA levels but were not able to earn points or obtain incentives (No Incentive Group). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was minutes of PA objectively measured using a novel PA tracking system at baseline (April 2011); Week 6 (June 2011); and Week 12 (July 2011). Other outcomes, including a self-report measure of PA, were collected at baseline, Week 12, and 6 months (October 2011). Data were analyzed in June 2012. Results: No significant differences between groups were found for primary or secondary outcomes at the 12-week and 6-month assessments. Participants in the Incentive Group recorded 17.52 minutes of PA/week (95% CI=12.49, 22.56) compared to 16.63 minutes/week (95% CI=11.76, 21.51) in the No Incentive Group at Week 12 (p=0.59). At 6 months, participants in the Incentive Group recorded 26.18 minutes of PA/week (95% CI=20.06, 32.29) compared to 24.00 minutes/week (95% CI=17.45, 30.54) in the No Incentive Group (p=0.45). Conclusions: Financial incentives did not encourage participants to undertake more PA than self-monitoring PA. This study contributes to the evidence base and has important implications for increasing participation in physical activity and fostering links with the business sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]