Will moving into social and affordable housing in the Athletes' Village increase family physical activity levels? Evaluation of a natural experiment

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

It is assumed that where you live has an impact on your health; this is often given as a reason for poor health amongst those living in less privileged surroundings. There have been a number of large-scale housing regeneration projects over the years, which aim to improve the living conditions and lifestyles of those living in low cost housing. However, these projects are long-term (often taking a decade or so to complete), making it difficult to demonstrate effects on lifestyle above those taking place over time. Effects of the built environment on physical activity levels are of particular interest as higher physical activity levels have a beneficial impact on a wide range of health outcomes. The specific provision of social and affordable housing provided by the Athletes' Village after the London 2012 Olympic Games (available from 2013) offers a unique opportunity to examine whether and how the 'built environment' affects physical activity patterns and body size in adults and children moving into the area. We will recruit a cohort of families before the Village accommodation becomes available, and follow up those that move into the Village, and compare physical activity patterns with those in families that do not move to the Village over a 2 year period. We will measure how the built environment is used in terms of walkability, ease of access, convenience of use etc., and how perceptions of the local environment influence its use, e.g. perceived levels of safety, social interactions and cohesion etc. Physical activity patterns will be assessed using accurate movement sensors, body size will be measured objectively using bio-electrical impedance. Geographical positioning systems will be employed to trace patterns of use of the local environment. While the short time scale of the intervention is unique, the findings will be generalisable, informing future design of residential developments that are destined to take place elsewhere. The key to public value of the proposal is that: (i) evidence based policy requires evidence on whether environmental changes thought to benefit residents actually do; (ii) the cost of evaluations such as that proposed is small compared to the costs of building and compared to the potential health benefit; (iii) small changes distributed widely in the population have the potential to deliver major health benefits; (iv) such benefits can only be identified by carefully designed evaluations of natural experiments. Finally we recognize the importance of disseminating our findings; we believe our proposed pathway to dissemination, including a stake holder forum including individuals identified by our extensive network of contacts, will provide this.