Table 1.
Baseline descriptive statistics for the sample (N = 366) of eastern North Carolina residents, including perceived and objectively-measured (Geographic Information System, GIS) neighborhood barriers and obesity prevention policy change support.
| Demographic characteristics | N | Mean (Standard Deviation) or N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 366 | 55.2 (12.0) |
| Education in years | 366 | 12.9 (2.7) |
| Gender (female) | 366 | 278 (76%) |
| Race | 364 | |
| Black (yes) | 236 (65%) | |
| Non-black (yes) | 128 (35%) | |
| Health Insurance status (yes) | 366 | 269 (74%) |
| Smoking status (yes) | 366 | 169 (46%) |
| Married or living with partner (yes) | 366 | 173 (47%) |
| Behaviors and Body Mass Index (BMI) | ||
| Diet Quality – Dietary Risk Assessment* | 287 | 27.8 (5.3) |
| Fruit/Vegetable servings per day | 366 | 3.4 (1.9) |
| Total Physical Activity (min/week) | 366 | 151.0 (259.2) |
| Steps/day (pedometer measured)** | 237 | 4496 (2862) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 365 | 35.9 (9.4) |
| Perceived neighborhood barriers | ||
| Perceived Neighborhood Nutrition Barriers | 357 | 14.2 (6.3) |
| Perceived Neighborhood Physical Activity Barriers | 346 | 30.0 (12.9) |
| Perceived Total Neighborhood Barriers | 343 | 41.9 (17.1) |
| GIS-assessed neighborhood factors*** | ||
| Density**** (number) of supermarkets | 273 | 0.4 (0.8) |
| Distance (miles) to closest supermarket | 273 | 2.2 (2.0) |
| Density (number) of farmers’ markets | 273 | 0.1 (0.3) |
| Distance (miles) to closest farmers’ market | 273 | 3.3 (2.1) |
| Density (number) of fast food restaurants | 273 | 1.4 (2.2) |
| Distance (miles) to closest fast food restaurant | 273 | 2.2 (2.1) |
| GIS nutrition - density***** | 273 | −0.8 (1.5) |
| GIS nutrition - distance***** | 273 | 3.3 (2.2) |
| Density (number) of low cost gym | 273 | 0.4 (0.7) |
| Distance (miles) to closest low cost gym | 273 | 4.9 (4.6) |
| Density (number) of parks | 273 | 1.0 (1.4) |
| Distance (miles) to closest park | 273 | 2.3 (2.3) |
| Density (number) of private gyms | 273 | 0.7 (1.2) |
| Distance (miles) to closest private gym | 273 | 2.5 (2.4) |
| GIS physical activity - density***** | 273 | 2.1 (2.7) |
| GIS physical activity - distance***** | 273 | 9.7 (7.8) |
| Obesity prevention policy change support****** | ||
| Healthy food policy support | 360 | 30.6 (8.0) |
| Physical activity policy support | 360 | 24.8 (6.1) |
| Overall policy support | 360 | 55.3 (13.1) |
Note: The dietary survey was administered at the first intervention visit which was attend by 273 (75%) of study participants. For Diet Quality, a higher score is better.
Note: Pedometer data were collected at the first intervention visit attend by 273 (75%) of study participants and reported for those with greater than 500 steps/day on a minimum of 3 days during the last 31 days of wearing.
Note: Distance to the closest food/physical activity venue and density of venues within a 1-mile radius of the residential address could only be calculated for participants with valid address data.
Number of venues within a 1 mile radius of the residential address
We derived the GIS nutrition density score by summing the densities of supermarkets and farmers’ markets and subtracting the density of fast food restaurants (a higher score indicated a healthier neighborhood food environment). We derived the GIS nutrition - distance score by summing the distances to the closest supermarket and farmers’ market and subtracting the distance to the closest fast food restaurant, such that a higher score indicated a less healthy neighborhood food environment. Likewise, we created two GIS-measured neighborhood scores for the density of and distance to the closest recreation parks, low-cost gyms, and private gyms. A higher GIS PA - density score indicated a healthier PA environment and a higher GIS PA distance score indicated a less healthy PA environment.
Participants indicated their level of support for the strategies to support healthy eating and PA on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating “strongly do not support” the strategy and 10 indicating “strongly support” the strategy. Responses were summed to create a “healthy food policy support” score (sum of items 1, 3, 6, and 7, with scores ranging from 4 to 40), a “physical activity policy support” score (sum of items 2, 4, and 5, with scores ranging from 3 to 30), and an “obesity prevention policy” score, summing responses to all seven items (possible scores ranged from 7 to 70). A higher score indicated greater obesity prevention policy support.