248010 Identifying the Agreement and Disagreement between Different Measures of the Built Environment

Monday, October 31, 2011

Vanisha L. Brown, PhD, MPH , School of Graduate Studies and Research, Division of Public Health Practice, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN
Thomas J. Songer, PhD, MSc , Center for Injury Research & Control, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Kevin E. Kip, PhD , College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
Emma Barinas-Mitchell, PhD , Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Suresh Mulukutla, MD , UPMC Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Physicians, Pittsburgh, PA
Evelyn O. Talbott, DrPH, MPH , Department of Epidemiology, Director University of Pittsburgh Academic Center for Excellence in Environmental PH Tracking, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States and worldwide. One of the less explored risk factors of CVD risk is the built environment, which includes all things that are developed and altered by man. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree of concordance and discordance of three different methods of measuring indicators of the built environment and to examine whether race influenced the degree of concordance.

Methods: Using a subset of the Heart SCORE Study population, an ancillary study, consisting of 40 external neighborhood assessments was conducted to evaluate the degree of concordance and discordance of three different methods of measuring indicators of the built environment. Kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement for selected questionnaire items between actual Heart SCORE participants and the independent evaluators. Finally, several questionnaire items that could be captured objectively were selected to directly examine the concordance with objective GIS measures of the environment.

Results: Environmental assessments revealed fair agreement between ratings from participants and independent evaluators, although agreement was better for more objective items. Agreement was also higher for neighborhoods classified as racially mixed. Measurement of objective attributes revealed a significant difference in the mean distance between neighborhood ratings for participants and independent evaluators for the presence of sidewalks; and among participants, there was a significant difference in the mean distance to trees.

Conclusions: Information from this study is of considerable public health significance, as it highlights some of the measurement issues surrounding measuring the health impact of the built environment, and emphasizes the need for the standardization of measurement instruments and data collection techniques in future studies.

Learning Areas:
Other professions or practice related to public health

Learning Objectives:
Define what the built environment is Compare the methods in which the built environment can be evaluated Discuss if race plays a role when examining the built environment Discuss how the findings can impact the standardization of the various methods used to evaluate the built environment

Keywords: Environment, Public Health

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified to be an abstract Author on the content I am responsible for because I am an Assistant Professor at an accredited institution.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

See more of: *Poster Session*: Built environment and healthy places
See more of: Environment