Physical activity in deprived communities in London: examining individual and neighbourhood-level factors

Introduction: The objectives of this study were to examine relationships between neighbourhood-level and individual-level characteristics and physical activity in deprived London neighbourhoods. Methods: In 40 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in London (ranked in top 11% in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) a cross-sectional survey (n = 4107 adults aged > = 16 years), neighbourhood audit tool, GIS measures and routine data measured neighbourhood and individual-level characteristics. The binary outcome was meeting the minimum recommended (CMO, UK) 5×30 mins moderate physical activity per week. Multilevel modelling was used to examine associations between physical activity and individual and neighbourhood-level characteristics. Results: Respondents living more than 300 m away from accessible greenspace had lower odds of achieving recommended physical activity levels than those who lived within 300 m; from 301–600 m (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.5–0.9) and from 601–900 m (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.8). There was substantial residual between-neighbourhood variance in physical activity (median odds ratio = 1.7). Other objectively measured neighbourhood-level characteristics were not associated with physical activity levels. Conclusions Distance to nearest greenspace is associated with meeting recommended physical activity levels in deprived London neighbourhoods. Despite residual variance in physical activity levels between neighbourhoods, we found little evidence for the influence of other measured neighbourhood-level characteristics.

Physical Activity in Deprived Communities in London: Examining Individual and Neighbourhood-Level Factors

Introduction The objectives of this study were to examine relationships between neighbourhood-level and individual-level characteristics and physical activity in deprived London neighbourhoods. Methods In 40 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in London (ranked in top 11% in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) a cross-sectional survey (n = 4107 adults aged > = 16 years), neighbourhood audit tool, GIS measures and routine data measured neighbourhood and individual-level characteristics. The binary outcome was meeting the minimum recommended (CMO, UK) 5×30 mins moderate physical activity per week. Multilevel modelling was used to examine associations between physical activity and individual and neighbourhood-level characteristics. Results Respondents living more than 300 m away from accessible greenspace had lower odds of achieving recommended physical activity levels than those who lived within 300 m; from 301–600 m (OR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.5–0.9) and from 601–900 m (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.8). There was substantial residual between-neighbourhood variance in physical activity (median odds ratio = 1.7). Other objectively measured neighbourhood-level characteristics were not associated with physical activity levels. Conclusions Distance to nearest greenspace is associated with meeting recommended physical activity levels in deprived London neighbourhoods. Despite residual variance in physical activity levels between neighbourhoods, we found little evidence for the influence of other measured neighbourhood-level characteristics.

Conspicuous by their abstinence: the limited engagement of heroin users in English and Welsh Drug Recovery Wings

Background In recent years, an abstinence-focused, ‘recovery’ agenda has emerged in UK drug policy, largely in response to the perception that many opioid users had been ‘parked indefinitely’ on Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST). The introduction of ten pilot ‘Drug Recovery Wings’ (DRWs) in 2011 represents the application of this recovery agenda to prisons. This paper describes the DRWs’ operational models, the place of opiate dependent prisoners within them, and the challenges of delivering ‘recovery’ in prison. Methods In 2013, the implementation and operational models of all ten pilot DRWs were rapidly assessed. Up to three days were spent in each DRW, undertaking semi-structured interviews with a sample of 94 DRW staff and 102 DRW residents. Interviews were fully transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Findings from the nine adult prisons are presented here. Results Four types of DRW were identified, distinguished by their size and selection criteria. Strikingly, no mid- or large-sized units regularly supported OST recipients through detoxification. Type A were large units whose residents were mostly on OST with long criminal records and few social or personal resources. Detoxification was rare, and medication reduction slow. Type B's mid-sized DRW was developed as a psychosocial support service for OST clients seeking detoxification. However, staff struggled to find such prisoners, and detoxification again proved rare. Type C DRWs focused on abstinence from all drugs, including OST. Though OST clients were not intentionally excluded, very few applied to these wings. Only Type D DRWs, offering intensive treatment on very small wings, regularly recruited OST recipients into abstinence-focused interventions. Conclusion Prison units wishing to support OST recipients in making greater progress towards abstinence may need to be small, intensive and take a stepped approach based on preparatory motivational work and extensive preparation for release. However, concerns about post-release deaths will remain.