Research article Special Issues

Modifying Older Adults’ Daily Sedentary Behaviour Using an Asset-based Solution: Views from Older Adults

  • Objective: There is a growing public health focus on the promotion of successful and active ageing. Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour (SB) in older adults are feasible and are improved by tailoring to individuals’ context and circumstances. SB is ubiquitous; therefore part of the tailoring process is to ensure individuals’ daily sedentary routine can be modified. The aim of this study was to understand the views of older adults and identify important considerations when creating a solution to modify daily sedentary patterns. Method: This was a qualitative research study. Fifteen older adult volunteers (mean age = 78 years) participated in 1 of 4 focus groups to identify solutions to modify daily sedentary routine. Two researchers conducted the focus groups whilst a third took detailed fieldnotes on a flipchart to member check the findings. Data were recorded and analysed thematically. Results: Participants wanted a solution with a range of options which could be tailored to individual needs and circumstances. The strategy suggested was to use the activities of daily routine and reasons why individuals already naturally interrupting their SB, collectively framed as assets. These assets were categorised into 5 sub-themes: physical assets (eg. standing up to reduce stiffness); psychological assets (eg. standing up to reduce feelings of guilt); interpersonal assets
    (eg. standing up to answer the phone); knowledge assets (eg. standing up due to knowing the benefits of breaking SB) and activities of daily living assets (eg. standing up to get a drink). Conclusion: This study provides important considerations from older adults’ perspectives to modify their daily sedentary patterns. The assets identified by participants could be used to co-create a tailored intervention with older adults to reduce SB, which may increase effectiveness and adherence.

    Citation: Calum F Leask, Marlene Sandlund, Dawn A Skelton, Emmanuelle Tulle, Sebastien FM Chastin. Modifying Older Adults’ Daily Sedentary Behaviour Using an Asset-based Solution: Views from Older Adults[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(3): 542-554. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.3.542

    Related Papers:

    [1] Stephanie A. Godleski, Casey T. Harris, Kevin M. Fitzpatrick, Ammina Kothari . Social and behavioral vulnerability, pregnancy, and negative mental health outcomes in the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 331-341. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022023
    [2] Amy Mizen, Richard Fry, Daniel Grinnell, Sarah E. Rodgers . Quantifying the Error Associated with Alternative GIS-based Techniques to Measure Access to Health Care Services. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 746-761. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.746
    [3] CCF Smits, JR Toelsie, MGM Eersel, ISK Krishnadath . Equity in health care: An urban and rural, and gender perspective; the Suriname Health Study. AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.1.1
    [4] Nguyen Tuan Hung, Vu Thu Trang, Trinh Van Tung, Nguyen Xuan Long, Ha Thi Thu, Tran Song Giang, Tran Hoang Thi Diem Ngoc, Vu Thi Thanh Mai, Nguyen Kim Oanh, Nguyen Thi Phuong, Nguyen Hang Nguyet Van, Nguyen Hanh Dung, Pham Tien Nam . COVID-19-related music-video-watching among the Vietnamese population: lessons on health education. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(3): 428-438. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021033
    [5] Prasanna Kannan, Jasmin Bhawra, Pinal Patel, Tarun Reddy Katapally . Preserving rural school health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Indigenous citizen scientist perspectives from a qualitative study. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 216-236. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022016
    [6] Gabrielle L. Jenkin, Amber L. Pearson, Graham Bentham, Peter Day, Simon Kingham . Neighbourhood Influences on Children’s Weight-related Behaviours and Body Mass Index. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 501-515. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.501
    [7] Sushant K Singh . COVID-19: A master stroke of Nature. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 393-402. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020033
    [8] Karyn Morrissey . Exploring Spatial Variability in the Relationship between Long Term Limiting Illness and Area Level Deprivation at the City Level Using Geographically Weighted Regression. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 426-440. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.426
    [9] Yosef Mohamed-Azzam Zakout, Fayez Saud Alreshidi, Ruba Mustafa Elsaid, Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed . The magnitude of COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and depression associated with intense mass media coverage in Saudi Arabia. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 664-678. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020052
    [10] Ali Roghani . The relationship between macro-socioeconomics determinants and COVID-19 vaccine distribution. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 655-664. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021052
  • Objective: There is a growing public health focus on the promotion of successful and active ageing. Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour (SB) in older adults are feasible and are improved by tailoring to individuals’ context and circumstances. SB is ubiquitous; therefore part of the tailoring process is to ensure individuals’ daily sedentary routine can be modified. The aim of this study was to understand the views of older adults and identify important considerations when creating a solution to modify daily sedentary patterns. Method: This was a qualitative research study. Fifteen older adult volunteers (mean age = 78 years) participated in 1 of 4 focus groups to identify solutions to modify daily sedentary routine. Two researchers conducted the focus groups whilst a third took detailed fieldnotes on a flipchart to member check the findings. Data were recorded and analysed thematically. Results: Participants wanted a solution with a range of options which could be tailored to individual needs and circumstances. The strategy suggested was to use the activities of daily routine and reasons why individuals already naturally interrupting their SB, collectively framed as assets. These assets were categorised into 5 sub-themes: physical assets (eg. standing up to reduce stiffness); psychological assets (eg. standing up to reduce feelings of guilt); interpersonal assets
    (eg. standing up to answer the phone); knowledge assets (eg. standing up due to knowing the benefits of breaking SB) and activities of daily living assets (eg. standing up to get a drink). Conclusion: This study provides important considerations from older adults’ perspectives to modify their daily sedentary patterns. The assets identified by participants could be used to co-create a tailored intervention with older adults to reduce SB, which may increase effectiveness and adherence.


    The 2019–2021 coronavirus pandemic has underscored many of public health disparities in the United States. Minority communities and people living in poverty account for disproportionately more COVID-19 cases and fatalities [1],[2]. The same communities may be inherently more vulnerable, due to underlying health conditions, poverty and lack of access to care [3][5]. Comparatively, less attention has been given to the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities, even though recent evidence suggests a rapid spread in rural areas [6].

    Greater prevalence of chronic disease and remoteness of rural areas are cause for concern, even though they make up only a fraction of total COVID-19 cases in the U.S. [7],[8]. Rural communities are more vulnerable to economic hardship, have worse healthcare access, health literacy and outcomes [9][12]. By extension, we may expect worse outcomes for more impoverished rural jurisdictions during the pandemic [11],[12].

    Past health disparities research has established a relationship between poor health outcomes and low socioeconomic status, often taken as a ranked measure of geographic area deprivation index, or ADI [13],[14]. Few researchers have made use of ADI when evaluating COVID-19 prevalence across U.S. geographies, but early evidence seems to confirm a general positive relationship between deprivation and prevalence exists [15],[16]. The ADI also permits inspection of its individual components to better understand nuanced or subtle population effects of social determinants of health (SDH), at the county level [17]. Other models, such as the social vulnerability index (SVI), may not be as readily amenable to the county level geography [18]. Proper disease management and policy efforts must understand these contrasts and public health needs to properly combat the spread of COVID-19 [19].

    ADI is an important tool for this discovery as it is publicly available and identifies which communities are at risk for poor health outcomes (e.g. mortality, hospitalization, emergency care, etc.). Effective policy could be validated and informed by such an index. ADI is used in this analysis as a predictor for COVID-19 prevalence that permits contrast between diverse communities. Our hypothesis is that ADI and its components are predictive of COVID-19 prevalence and that this correspondence is differentiated at least partially by county type.

    Current estimates for COVID-19 cases were obtained from the JHU CSSE Coronavirus tracking project [20],[21]. This data repository contains county level time series data for confirmed cases reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) dating back to January 22nd, 2020 and commonly used by population health researchers for modeling COVID-19 spread [22][24]. We selected cumulative COVID-19 case estimates as of August 20th, 2020 for analysis. This was the latest data we had retrieved before a resurgence in cases thru Winter 2021, which may represent the start of a distinct, seasonal phase in the ongoing pandemic. Population by race/ethnicity, and gender per county were based on 2019 estimates from the 2010 U.S. Census [25],[26]. Case prevalence was calculated as a count of confirmed cases per 100k persons in each county. County data were linked across sources using their unique Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) geocodes.

    COVID-19 prevalence and population characteristics are made publicly available by the US CDC and US Census Bureau respectively. No personally identifiable or protected health information was included as part of this research and no attempt was made to associate cases to either identifying information or protected health records. This analysis was therefore exempt from institutional review and approval.

    We constructed county level ADI by weighting 17 widely used measures in population health literature for poverty, income, and education [13],[27],[28]. The 5-year estimates of 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data were used for calculating ADI and each of the composite measures, using an approach as described by Singh et al. [13],[26],[28]. Higher raw ADI corresponds to more deprivation and therefore lower socioeconomic status (SES). A high ADI national percentile rank corresponds to high raw ADI and more deprivation. We made use of national rank ADI for modeling of COVID-19 prevalence.

    We classified 3,142 counties across the U.S. as “urban” or “rural” and stratified the relationship between prevalence and ADI accordingly. It was necessary to rely on a classification scheme developed for the county level geography. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) developed such a mechanism for classifying rural and urbanized areas in 2001 for the accurate assessment and measurement of health differences between residents [29][30]. The 2013 NCHS Urbanization scheme defines Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) as at least 50,000 residents with an urban nucleus of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. Urban counties possess an urbanized core or are surrounding counties with at least 500 people per square mile included in the MSA. Nonmetropolitan counties (hereafter, “rural”) are micropolitan or noncore geographies of fewer than 50,000 residents.

    Descriptive statistics for population, population density, ADI, ADI components, Census variables and COVID-19 case-mortality figures were tabulated across county type. Effect sizes for each comparison were estimated using Kendall's tau and considered statistically significant at a p < 0.001 level. Additional county-level social determinants of health (SDH) variables included percent male, percent non-Caucasian minority and percent aged 65 years or older. A subset of SDH variables are presented in this work to reduce redundancy of ADI measures, while illustrating resident demographics and domains of the ADI.

    Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for ADI national rank, ADI components and prevalence estimates and for each county type. These correlation statistics were summarized as correlation matrices for inspection. All underlying rho coefficients and p-values were calculated, but only a subset presented as part of the results.

    Finally, five models using logarithmic link functions were fitted to explore an effect of county type (i.e., urban vs. rural) on the relationship between ADI and COVID-19 prevalence. A base comparison model is defined as a mapping of ADI national rank to cumulative COVID-19 prevalence. Pairs of test models reflect stratification based on county type. Model 2 and 3 fitted national rank ADI to COVID-19 Prevalence for Urban and Rural jurisdictions respectively. Models 4 and 5 fitted constituent variables of ADI to COVID-19 Prevalence with respect to county type. For each model, we compared relative residual deviance and McFadden R2 as an OLS analogue for deviance explained [31],[32]. This permitted comparison of either constituent model (models 4 and 5) with their corresponding ADI base model (models 2 and 3). Inspection of model effect sizes allowed us to interpret which features of ADI contributed most to differential performance by county type. This was summarized as a variable importance plot ranking the absolute t-values obtained from inputs of models 4 and 5.

    Table 1 reflects common SDH, including household income (in USD), percent of families below poverty, percent of households without vehicles and percent of households with more than one person per bedroom. Rural counties were found to have significantly worse outcomes, including median family income (mean = $59,097) and percent of residents under 150% of poverty (mean = 28%). They were also characteristically more male (mean = 50.4%), had fewer non-Caucasian residents (mean = 15.4%) and more residents aged 65 or older (mean = 17.1%). No significant difference was found in percent of households with more than one occupant per bedroom (mean = 2.5%), percent unemployed (mean = 5.8%) or percent single parent households (mean = 34.1%). Rural counties had significantly fewer COVID-19 average cases, cases per capita and deaths as of August 20, 2020.

    Table 1.  Population characteristics for ADI, ADI components, SDH and cumulative COVID-19 case, prevalence and mortality.
    Feature Rural
    Mean (SD) or N (%)
    Urban
    Mean (SD) or N (%)
    Effect Size
    τ (p)
    All Counties
    Mean (SD) or N (%)
    Count of Counties 1,976 (62.9%) 1,166 (37.1%) - 3,142 (100%)
    Characteristics
     Total Population (1,000) 46,063 (14%) 282,176 (86%) - 328,240 (100%)
     Mean Population (1,000) 23.3 (22.2) 242.0 (518.5) 0.476 * 104.5 (333.4)
     Area (Sq Miles) 1,2789 (4,303) 901 (1,652) -0.107 * 1,138 (3,562)
     Density 42.9 (95) 625.7 (2,7917) 0.493 * 259.3 (1,725)
    ADI Variables
     National Rank ADI 56.6 (26.5) 37 (26.7) -0.276 * 49.3 (28.2)
     Median Family Income (1,000 USD) 59.1 (12.1) 72.5 (17.9) 0.323 * 64.1 (15.9)
     Median Mortgage (1,000 USD) 1.1 (212.4) 1.4 (411.1) 0.401 * 1.2 (337.5)
     Median Rent (1,000 USD) 672.5 (137.1) 899.9 (248.1) 0.448 * 756.9 (216.1)
     Median House Value (1,000 USD) 122.0 (65.5) 190.1 (108.5) 0.381 * 147.2 (90.3)
     % Families in Poverty 12 (6.1) 9.9 (4.4) -0.136 * 11.2 (5.7)
     % Owner Occupied Housing 72.4 (7.1) 69.8 (9.7) -0.097 * 71.4 (8.3)
     Ratio Earning <10kto>50k 2.7 (0.6) 2.4 (0.6) -0.23 * 2.6 (0.7)
     % Under 150pct Poverty 28 (8.8) 22.7 (7.5) -0.227 * 26 (8.7)
     % Single Parent Households 34.1 (10.4) 33.4 (8.3) -0.024 (0.09) 33.8 (9.6)
     % No Vehicle Households 6.4 (4.5) 6.3 (4.5) -0.034 (0.02) 6.4 (4.5)
     % with White Collar Jobs 30.2 (5.6) 34.7 (7.3) 0.266 * 31.9 (6.7)
     % Unemployed 5.8 (3.3) 5.7 (2) 0.015 (0.31) 5.8 (2.8)
     % ≥ HS Education 85.6 (6.7) 88.2 (5.2) 0.153 * 86.6 (6.3)
     % < 9th Grade Education 5.5 (4) 4.3 (2.8) -0.136 * 5 (3.6)
     % > 1 Person per Room Households 2.5 (2.8) 2.4 (1.8) 0.019 (0.18) 2.4 (2.4)
    Other SDH
     % Male 50.4 (2.7) 49.5 (1.7) -0.184 * 50.1 (2.4)
     % Non-Caucasian Race 15.4 (17.5) 19.6 (15.4) 0.189 * 16.9 (16.9)
     % 65yoa or Older 17.1 (3.9) 14.4 (3.5) -0.296 * 16.1 (4)
    COVID-19 Prevalence
     Confirmed Cases 296.3 (446.4) 4,205 (12,202) 0.439 * 1,747 (7,675)
     Cases per 100,000 1,199 (1,264) 1,391.6 (1,072) 0.156 * 1,271 (1,200)
     Deaths 6.7 (14.2) 136.8 (487.4) 0.418 * 55 (303.6)

    Note: *p-values are significant at the p < 0.001 level. Values reflect CSSE estimates as of 8/20/2020.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    COVID-19 prevalence was higher in urban counties, but less correlated to national rank ADI when compared to rural (ρ = 0.27; 0.45, respectively) (Figure 1). Prevalence for urban counties was also less strongly correlated with family income (ρ = −0.18; −0.33), percent of households under 150% of poverty (ρ = 0.31; 0.42), and percent of residents with a white-collar job (ρ = −0.08; −0.29). In urban counties, prevalence was more correlated with % of residents with less than 9th grade education (ρ = 0.49; 0.39, respectively) and percent of households with more than one person per bedroom (ρ = 0.39; 0.22, respectively). The aforementioned observations were each significant at the p < 0.001 level.

    Figure 1.  Correlation matrices for COVID-19 prevalence and ADI components across county type.

    The base model for overall county level prevalence as a function of ADI (Model 1) yielded a large total residual deviance and only around 16% of deviance explained (Table 2). The parameter estimate for ADI was significant, but a unit increase in ADI rank was only associated with 1.2% change in prevalence (Table 3). ADI within urban jurisdictions (Model 2) was less predictive of prevalence (McFadden R2 = 0.132) but had better set of deviance residuals than did the rural comparison, Model 3. The estimated change in prevalence from a unit increase in ADI was around 0.9% for urban counties, and more than double (2%) for rural. Models 4 and 5 obtained roughly equal McFadden R2 values for urban and rural jurisdictions (0.371 and 0.386). Compared to their simpler counterparts (Models 2 and 3), both model 4 and 5 had substantial improvements in deviance explained but median deviance residual remained unchanged for rural counties.

    Table 2.  Model performance obtained by COVID-19 prevalence predicted by ADI, ADI components and county type.
    Model County Subset Predictor(s) Total Residual Deviance Residual DF Mean Deviance Residual Median Deviance Residual IQR Deviance Residual McFadden R2
    M1 All ADI 2354982 3140 −3.42 −0.20 −23.1–13.1 0.16
    M2 Urban ADI 659035.9 1164 −2.46 −0.13 −19.5–11.7 0.13
    M3 Rural ADI 1466136 1974 −3.44 −0.21 −22.3–11.9 0.28
    M4 Urban ADI Components 475069 1150 −1.86 −0.10 −15.2–8.6 0.37
    M5 Rural ADI Components 1243785 1960 −3.22 −0.21 −20.0–10.0 0.39

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Model coefficients and effect sizes for COVID-19 prevalence by ADI, ADI components and county type.
    Features Coefficient Estimate 2.50% 97.50% z value y-change y-change/%
    M1: All Prevalence~ADI
     (Intercept) 6.48 6.48 6.48 5434.5 - 0
     National Rank ADI 0.01 0.01 0.01 669.6 8.08 1.24
    M2: Urban Prevalence~ADI
     (Intercept) 6.87 6.87 6.87 4670.6 - 0
     National Rank ADI 0.01 0.01 0.01 321.7 8.84 0.92
    M3: Rural Prevalence~ADI
     (Intercept) 5.81 5.83 5.84 2871.4 - 0
     National Rank ADI 0.02 0.02 0.02 716.3 6.85 2.01
    M4: Urban Prevalence~ADI Components
     (Intercept) 13.22 13.12 13.32 250.2 - 0
     Median Family Income <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 30.5 2.84 <0.01
     Median Mortgage <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 43.8 164.49 0.03
     Median Rent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 133.8 609.15 0.11
     Median House Value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 −155.6 −1.67 <0.01
     % Families in Poverty −1.58 −1.67 −1.49 −34 −437509.1 −79.38
     % Owner Occupied Housing −0.76 −0.78 −0.73 −59.2 −292992.3 −53.16
     Ratio Earning <10kto>50k 0.08 0.07 0.09 25 46339.70 8.41
     % Under 150pct Poverty 0.74 0.67 0.82 19.3 604855.63 109.74
     % Single Parent Households 1.11 1.08 1.14 67.1 1122006.1 203.57
     % No Vehicle Households −0.59 −0.64 −0.55 −25.2 −246464.3 −44.2
     % with White Collar Jobs 0.88 0.83 0.92 38.7 771882.91 140.04
     % Unemployed 0.70 0.60 0.81 13.3 561781.79 101.92
     % ≥HS Education −8.49 −8.59 −8.40 −177 −551061.6 −99.98
     % <9th Grade Education −4.04 −4.18 −3.90 −55.6 −541456.2 −98.24
     % >1 Person per Bedroom Households 1.54 1.41 1.67 22.8 2022451.8 366.94
    M5: Rural Prevalence~ADI Components
     (Intercept) 12.15 12.10 12.20 445.7 - 0
     Median Family Income <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 107.3 2.87 <0.01
     Median Mortgage <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 11.1 14.72 0.01
     Median Rent <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 48.4 77.39 0.04
     Median House Value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 −52.7 −0.22 <0.01
     % Families in Poverty 1.57 1.52 1.62 65.1 716431.05 379.39
     % Owner Occupied Housing −0.91 −0.93 −0.89 −92.6 −112826.4 −59.75
     Ratio Earning <10kto>50k −0.06 −0.06 −0.05 −22.4 −10059.14 −5.33
     % Under 150pct Poverty 0.77 0.73 0.82 33 220215.32 116.62
     % Single Parent Households 2.15 2.13 2.17 243 1433100.1 758.91
     % No Vehicle Households −2.52 −2.56 −2.48 −125.2 −173637.5 −91.95
     % with White Collar Jobs −1.37 −1.40 −1.35 −90.9 −141051 −74.70
     % Unemployed 0.09 0.04 0.14 3.6 18260.30 9.67
     % ≥HS Education −6.92 −6.97 −6.87 −287.5 −188649.4 −99.90
     % <9th Grade Education −3.27 −3.33 −3.21 −104 −181656.3 −96.20
     % >1 Person per Bedroom Households 0.88 0.83 0.93 33.9 266369.33 141.06

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Figure 2 shows the ADI component with strongest effect for models 4 and 5 was the percent of people with at least a high school education (t = −177.047; −287.523, respectively). This was statistically significant at p < 0.001, inversely related to COVID-19 prevalence and stronger for rural jurisdictions. The least influential component was also the same, the percent of people unemployed, which was higher and positive for urban jurisdictions (t = 13.331; 3.640). Much of the variable ranking otherwise differed considerably between jurisdictions, with Median House Value, and Median Rent ranking 2nd and 3rd for urban, but only rising to 9th and 10th in rural communities.

    Figure 2.  Variable Importance plots for M4 and M5.

    Discrepancies between urban and rural counties were evident both in individual SDH measures and their combined effect on prevalence estimates. The differences observed in rank correlation and variable importance appear characteristic of the communities they reflect. Rent and home values tend to be lower in rural jurisdictions, for example, and inversely related to COVID-19 prevalence. In urban areas, fewer residents own private vehicles, thus number of vehicles was less predictive than in rural communities. Generally, stronger associations between ADI components and prevalence were found among rural jurisdictions. Rural models M3 and M5 demonstrated higher deviance explained and M3 had more than twice the change in prevalence per unit ADI compared to urban jurisdiction model M2. Model performance metrics illustrate national rank ADI was more predictive of COVID-19 prevalence in rural communities than urban ones. Together, these results suggest (1) the overall prevalence of COVID-19 is more varied among rural jurisdictions, and (2) the effect of socioeconomic disparity on COVID-19 prevalence is worse for rural jurisdictions over urban ones.

    ADI and component measures were instrumental in assessing this contrast between jurisdictions and can aid lawmakers in identifying regions most in need. The health policy implications are (1) that geosocial factors should be considered when identifying communities most at risk of an outbreak, (2) disparate prevalence, morbidity and amenability to interventions can be evaluated for geographic regions and (3) interventions should consider these needs and disparities to adequately control disease spread within a geography. For example, mobile vaccination and testing centers could alleviate limited health access due to low vehicle ownership or poverty.

    These results require several qualifications. First, they are time-dependent and reflect an evolving pandemic. Our analysis was limited to the end of August 2020 to inspect the initial phases of disease spread as it relates to geographic characteristics and SDH. Other researchers have found the same general pattern for high COVID-19 incidence in rural communities during the early stages of the pandemic [33]. Temporal modeling with the implementation of various health policy measures and locations may be required to further our understanding of these associations between deprivation and spread but was out of scope for this work.

    Second, the granularity of both the classification scheme and level of geography are not ideal for detecting small or nuanced effects. We expect much greater heterogeneity in ADI composites for densely populated regions. Census tract or block group level data may have been more appropriate, but this information for testing results is not currently available nationwide [34]. Third, ADI only captures a handful of SDH that, while widely used, do not account for racial disparities in COVID-19 spread. Race, age and gender should be considered in future modeling efforts for coronavirus prevalence. Asymptomatic spread of the disease likely also undermines our understanding of differential prevalence by county type.

    Finally, mortality is a parallel outcome that has substantial weight in policy decisions. Most efforts to understand level of COVID-19 mortality risk are conducted at the patient-level however. Mortality can be evaluated at by geography but is time-lagged, limiting its usefulness in prevention and planning. Another approach might be to use estimates of healthcare access and comorbidities at geographic scales to gauge localized risk of COVID-19 mortality. Such analyses were beyond the scope of this work but remain of interest wherever these data are available.

    Additional work is also required to tie in known risk factors and SDH to adequately address long-standing disparities in health outcomes and predict geographies that are most impacted by a pandemic [35]. Rural communities have notably different challenges to access care than those in more densely populated areas [36],[37]. During a pandemic, lack of reliable internet access and transportation may compound the effect of poverty on telehealth services or ambulatory care. Efforts targeting rural communities must navigate these challenges while reducing the disparate burden of poverty [38]. As more data become available on coronavirus cases, we expect finer resolution of geographic data, making it necessary to reevaluate and confirm these findings in smaller community levels.

    Though the majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths occur in metropolitan areas, rural communities continue to struggle with highly disparate health outcomes and in some jurisdictions, higher per capita COVID-19 prevalence. The reasons for this geographic difference in prevalence are many but an abundance of research implicates rural health disparity, here measured as an index of deprivation, as exacerbating the pandemic. The underlying economic and practical burdens these communities face have influenced access to care and effective policy to combat the virus likely will need to address these concerns.

    [1] Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, et al. (2012) Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 380: 247-257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1
    [2] Yates T , Wilmot EG, Davies MJ, et al. (2011) Sedentary behavior: What’s in a definition? Am J Prev Med 40: e33-e34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.017
    [3] Henson J, Yates T, Biddle SJH, et al. (2013) Associations of objectively measured sedentary behaviour and physical activity with markers of cardiometabolic health. Diabetologia 56: 1012-1020.
    [4] Teychenne M, Ball K, Salmon J (2010) Sedentary behavior and depression among adults: A review. Int J Behav Med 17: 246-254.
    [5] Van der Ploeg HP, Chey T, Korda RJ, et al. (2012) Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222 497 Australian adults. Arch Intern Med 172: 494-500.
    [6] The Conference Board of Canada: The economic impact of reducing physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour. The Conference Board of Canada, 2014. Available from: http://sportmatters.ca/sites/default/files/content/moving_ahead_economic_impact_en.pdf
    [7] Dogra S, Stathokostas L (2012) Sedentary behavior and physical activity are independent predictors of successful aging in middle-aged and older adults. J Aging Res 2012: 1-8.
    [8] Department of Health. Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers. London, Department of Health, 2011.
    [9] Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, et al. (2008) Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003–2004. Am J Epidemiol 167: 875-881.
    [10] Harvey JA, Chastin SFM, Skelton DA (2013) Prevalence of sedentary behavior in older adults: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10: 6645-6661.
    [11] Gardiner PA, Eakin EG, Healy GN, et al. (2011) Feasibility of reducing older adults’ sedentary time. Am J Prev Med 41: 174-177.
    [12] Fitzsimons CF, Kirk A, Baker G, et al. (2013) Using an individualised consultation and activPALTM feedback to reduce sedentary time in older Scottish adults: Results of a feasibility and pilot study. Prev Med 57, 718-720.
    [13] Rimer BK, Kreuter MW (2006) Advancing Tailored Health Communication: A Persuasion and Message Effects Perspective. J Commun 56: S184-S201.
    [14] Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS (2007) Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 133: 673-693.
    [15] Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS(2010)A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med 51: 214-221.
    [16] Chastin SFM, Buck C, Freiberger E, et al. (2015) Systematic literature review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in older adults: a DEDIPAC study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12: 127-138.
    [17] Chastin SFM, Fitzpatrick N, Andrews M, et al. (2014) Determinants of sedentary behavior, motivation, barriers and strategies to reduce sitting time in older women: a qualitative investigation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11: 773-791.
    [18] Greenwood-Hickman MA, Renz A, Rosenberg DE (2016) Motivators and Barriers to Reducing Sedentary Behavior Among Overweight and Obese Older Adults. Gerontologist 56: 660-668.
    [19] Sartini C, Wannamethee SG, Iliffe S, et al. (2015) Diurnal patterns of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older men. BMC Public Health 15: 609.
    [20] Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, et al. (2009) Toward more rigor in focus group research: A new framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. Int J Qual Method 8: 1-21.
    [21] Visser M, Koster A (2013) Development of a questionnaire to assess sedentary time in older persons - a comparative study using accelerometry. BMC Geriatr 13: 80.
    [22] The Scottish Government. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012: A National Statistics Publication for Scotland 18 December 2012, Edinburgh, The Scottish Government, 2012.
    [23] Carlson JA (2010) Avoiding Traps in Member Checking. Qual Rep 15: 1102-1113.
    [24] Kitzinger J, Barbour R (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
    [25] Holliday A (2006) Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
    [26] Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3: 77-101.
    [27] Kuckartz U (2014) Qualitative Text Analysis. London: Sage Publications
    [28] Aronson J (1994) A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qual Rep 2: 3.
    [29] Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, et al. (2008) Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 204: 429-432.
    [30] Antonovsky A (1996) The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot Int 11: 11-18.
    [31] Richard L, Gauvin L, Raine K (2011) Ecological models revisited: their uses and evolution in health promotion over two decades. Annu Rev Public Health 32: 307-326.
    [32] Approach C, Stokols D, Grzywacz JG, et al. (2003) Human Environments. Am J Heal Promot 18: 4-14.
    [33] Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 6: 42.
    [34] Leask CF, Harvey JA, Skelton DA, et al. (2015) Exploring the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults (what, where, why, when and with whom). Eur Rev Ageing Phys Act 12.
    [35] Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews C E, et al. (2010) Too much sitting: the population-health science of sedentary behavior. Ex Sport Sci Revires 38: 105-113.
    [36] Nicolai S, Benzinger P, Skelton DA, et al. (2010) Day-to-day variability of physical activity of older adults living in the community. J Aging Phys Act 18: 75-86.
    [37] Clemson L, Singh MAF, Bundy A, et al. (2012) Integration of balance and strength training into daily life activity to reduce rate of falls in older people (the LiFE study): randomised parallel trial. BMJ 345: e4547.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Larissa H. Unruh, Sadhana Dharmapuri, Yinglin Xia, Kenneth Soyemi, Gaetano Santulli, Health disparities and COVID-19: A retrospective study examining individual and community factors causing disproportionate COVID-19 outcomes in Cook County, Illinois, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0268317, 10.1371/journal.pone.0268317
    2. Shaheen Shiraz Kurani, Herbert C. Heien, Lindsey R. Sangaralingham, Jonathan W. Inselman, Nilay D. Shah, Sherita Hill Golden, Rozalina G. McCoy, Association of Area-Level Socioeconomic Deprivation With Hypoglycemic and Hyperglycemic Crises in US Adults With Diabetes, 2022, 5, 2574-3805, e2143597, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43597
    3. Qian Huang, Susan L. Cutter, Spatial-temporal differences of COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S., 2022, 1, 2731-6963, 10.1007/s44212-022-00019-9
    4. Nicola Bartolomeo, Massimo Giotta, Silvio Tafuri, Paolo Trerotoli, Impact of Socioeconomic Deprivation on the Local Spread of COVID-19 Cases Mediated by the Effect of Seasons and Restrictive Public Health Measures: A Retrospective Observational Study in Apulia Region, Italy, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 11410, 10.3390/ijerph191811410
    5. Michelle S. Wong, Arleen F. Brown, Donna L. Washington, Inclusion of Race and Ethnicity With Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation When Assessing COVID-19 Hospitalization Risk Among California Veterans Health Administration Users, 2023, 6, 2574-3805, e231471, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1471
    6. B. Hendricks, B.S. Price, T. Dotson, W. Kimble, S. Davis, M. Khodaverdi, A. Halasz, G.S. Smith, S. Hodder, If you build it, will they come? Is test site availability a root cause of geographic disparities in COVID-19 testing?, 2023, 216, 00333506, 21, 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.09.009
    7. Stephanie Hoffmann, Mira Tschorn, Niels Michalski, Jens Hoebel, Bernd R. Förstner, Michael A. Rapp, Jacob Spallek, Association of regional socioeconomic deprivation and rurality with global developmental delay in early childhood: Data from mandatory school entry examinations in Germany, 2022, 75, 13538292, 102794, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102794
    8. Kirsi Marjaana Manz, Lars Schwettmann, Ulrich Mansmann, Werner Maier, Area Deprivation and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality in Bavaria, Germany: A Bayesian Geographical Analysis, 2022, 10, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2022.927658
    9. Jonathan B. Edmiston, Elizabeth G. Cohn, Sergio L. Teruya, Natalia Sabogal, Daniel Massillon, Varsha Muralidhar, Carlos Rodriguez, Stephen Helmke, Denise Fine, Morgan Winburn, Codruta Chiuzan, Eldad A. Hod, Farbod Raiszadeh, Damien Kurian, Mathew S. Maurer, Frederick L. Ruberg, Dong Keon Yon, Clinical and social determinants of health features of SARS-CoV-2 infection among Black and Caribbean Hispanic patients with heart failure: The SCAN-MP Study, 2023, 18, 1932-6203, e0283730, 10.1371/journal.pone.0283730
    10. Evelyn Iriarte, Sarah Cooley, Julie Wisch, Kristine M. Erlandson, Beau M. Ances, Catherine Jankowski, Area Deprivation Index and Frailty Among Older People With HIV, 2024, 0733-4648, 10.1177/07334648241262658
    11. Aisling R. Caffrey, Haley J. Appaneal, Vrishali V. Lopes, Laura Puzniak, Evan J. Zasowski, Luis Jodar, Kerry L. LaPlante, John M. McLaughlin, Effectiveness of BNT162b2 XBB vaccine in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, 2024, 15, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-024-53842-w
    12. Owen S. Henry, Sai Batchu, Joseph Lachant, Isabella Armento, Krystal Hunter, Steven J. Staffa, John Porter, Tanya Egodage, Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Continue to Bear the Burden of Gun Violence, 2024, 293, 00224804, 396, 10.1016/j.jss.2023.09.002
    13. Kimberly A. Rollings, Grace A. Noppert, Jennifer J. Griggs, Robert A. Melendez, Philippa J. Clarke, Shihe Fu, Comparison of two area-level socioeconomic deprivation indices: Implications for public health research, practice, and policy, 2023, 18, 1932-6203, e0292281, 10.1371/journal.pone.0292281
    14. Christina G. Wong, Justin B. Miller, Fan Zhang, Robert A. Rissman, Rema Raman, James R. Hall, Melissa Petersen, Kristine Yaffe, Amy J. Kind, Sid E. O’Bryant, Beau Ances, Ganesh Babulal, Robert Barber, Lisa Barnes, Matthew Borzage, Meredith Braskie, Amrita Cheema, Brad Christian, Ann Cohen, Michael Donohue, James Hall, Leigh Johnson, Amy Kind, Stephanie Large, Joe Lee, Jorge Llibre-Guerra, Mark Mapstone, David Mason, Michelle Mielke, Rajesh Nandy, Sid O'Bryant, Ozioma Okonkwo, Ray Palmer, Melissa Petersen, Nicole Phillips, Rema Raman, Robert Rissman, Monica Rivera Mindt, Yonggang Shi, Arthur Toga, Badri Vardarajan, Raul Vintimilla, Kristine Yaffe, Fan Zhang, Zhengyang Zhou, Evaluation of Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage and Cognition in Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White Adults 50 Years and Older in the US, 2023, 6, 2574-3805, e2325325, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.25325
    15. Haley J. Appaneal, Kerry L. LaPlante, Vrishali V. Lopes, Catherine Martin, Laura Puzniak, Timothy L. Wiemken, Evan J. Zasowski, John M. McLaughlin, Aisling R. Caffrey, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Utilization for the Treatment of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in the National Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, 2024, 13, 2193-8229, 155, 10.1007/s40121-023-00910-1
    16. Hassaam S. Choudhry, Riya H. Patel, Lana Salloum, Jack McCloskey, Jeffrey M. Goshe, Association Between Neighborhood Deprivation and Number of Ophthalmology Providers, 2024, 0928-6586, 1, 10.1080/09286586.2024.2406503
    17. Jung A. Kang, Denise D. Quigley, Ashley M. Chastain, Hsin S. Ma, Jingjing Shang, Patricia W. Stone, Urban and Rural Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes in the United States: A Systematic Review, 2024, 1077-5587, 10.1177/10775587241298566
    18. Aisling R. Caffrey, Haley J. Appaneal, Vrishali V. Lopes, Thomas Lavoie, Laura Puzniak, Evan J. Zasowski, Luis Jodar, Iqra Arham, Kerry L. LaPlante, John M. McLaughlin, Bonnie Chase Prokesch, Association between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment and antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient setting among patients with COVID-19, 2025, 2165-0497, 10.1128/spectrum.03209-24
    19. Haley J. Appaneal, Vrishali V. Lopes, Laura Puzniak, Evan J. Zasowski, Luis Jodar, John M. McLaughlin, Aisling R. Caffrey, Early effectiveness of the BNT162b2 KP.2 vaccine against COVID-19 in the US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, 2025, 16, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-025-59344-7
    20. Danielle J. Sim, Siam Rezwan, Waldemar Rodriguez-Silva, Tyler Reinoso, Lily Zhu, Kelli Webb, Carisa M. Cooney, Rural Representation, 2025, 1536-3708, 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004354
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7153) PDF downloads(1719) Cited by(15)

Figures and Tables

Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog