Corrigendum: Use of Emerging Technologies to Assess Differences in Outdoor Physical Activity in St. Louis, Missouri

A corrigendum on

Use of emerging technologies to assess differences in outdoor physical activity in St. Louis, Missouri
by Adlakha D, Budd EL, Gernes R, Sequeira S, Hipp JA. Front Public Health (2014) 2:41. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00041

Results and figures of the article by Adlakha et al. (2014) contained minor errors, which we hereby rectify.

Results show that a large majority of running and walking routes were through or tangential to a park or green space. A total of 1,722.01 miles from 287 running routes and 236.84 miles from 71 walking routes appear in Figure 1 and Table 1. The average lengths of a run and walk in this sample were 6.00 and 3.33 miles, respectively. Of all the parks in the study area, 70% were located in low-income neighborhoods. Of the 287 running routes, 80.80% traversed a park at some point during the run and 6.97% of these runs took place in parks located in low-SES neighborhoods. Of the 71 walking routes, 70.40% traversed a park at some point during the walk and 15.50% of walking routes occurred in parks located in low-SES neighborhoods. Figure 2 illustrates the availability of many parks across St. Louis, but shows fewer mapped running or walking routes in the northern half of the region that features more low-SES neighborhoods.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Running routes, walking routes, and poverty rate in St. Louis, MO, USA.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Use of parks in St. Louis, MO for physical activity in 2012^a.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Running and walking routes in parks and poverty rate in St. Louis, MO, USA.

The odds of reported running and walking routes traversing low-SES neighborhoods were significantly lower than the odds of running and walking routes reported in higher-SES neighborhoods (runs: OR = 0.36, CI = 0.21–0.62; walks: OR = 0.41, CI = 0.23–0.73) (Table 2). The odds of running in a park in a low-SES neighborhood were 52% lower than running in a park in a higher-SES neighborhood (OR = 0.48, CI = 0.29–0.79). The odds of walking reported in a park in a low-SES neighborhood were 64% lower than walking in a park in a higher-SES neighborhood (OR = 0.36, CI = 0.16–0.82).

TABLE 2

Table 2. Logistic regression: odds of running and walking in a low-SES neighborhood (N = 238) and park (N = 511), compared to higher-SES neighborhoods.

Revised results indicate decreased odds of reported running and walking in low-SES St. Louis neighborhoods compared to higher-SES St. Louis neighborhoods (Table 1). This finding is consistent with the disparate rates of PA in low versus higher-SES areas (1, 2). Overall, the lower odds of reported running and walking in low-SES neighborhoods and parks located in these low-SES neighborhoods compared to higher-SES neighborhoods and parks corroborates several health and environmental disparities between north and south St. Louis.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Open Space Council for the St. Louis region and Washington University in St. Louis University Research Strategic Alliance for providing the funding for this research.

References

1. Cohen DA, Marsh T, Williamson S, Derose KP, Martinez H, Setodji C, et al. Parks and physical activity: why are some parks used more than others? Prev Med (2010) 50(Suppl 1):S9–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Pearce J, Witten K, Hiscock R, Blakely T. Are socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods deprived of health-related community resources? Int J Epidemiol (2007) 36:348–55. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl267

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar