Static versus dynamic measures of environmental exposure to physical activity promoting environments as associated with cancer-related behavioral, clinical, and biomarker outcomes

Keywords: dynamic exposure, kernel density estimate, accelerometry measures , walkability, recreation, NDVI, accelerometer, cancer risk
Session Type: Virtual Paper Abstract
Day: Tuesday
Session Start / End Time: 3/1/2022 08:00 AM (Eastern Time (US & Canada)) - 3/1/2022 09:20 AM (Eastern Time (US & Canada))
Room: Virtual 41

Abstract

Introduction:
Though the built environment is a detrimental influence on cancer, methods of the best way to measure environmental exposures are often conflicting. Static home buffers may not reflect a person’s true environmental exposure. Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and accelerometry measures taken together are believed to better define an individual’s environment. The goal of this research is to use data from the Community of Mine (CoM) study to explore differences in exposures to physical activity (PA) supporting environments using static and dynamic methods of quantifying exposure.

Methods:
The CoM study was designed to select participants from a variety of neighborhoods in San Diego County to ensure heterogeneity and improve our capability to elucidate associations with cancer-related outcomes. Static and dynamic exposures were calculated using GPS-GIS derived kernel density estimates. Associations of health outcomes and environmental exposures were assessed using quantile regression analysis.


Results:
The results across outcomes and exposures were largely heterogenous. BMI had the most significant associations with static measures of exposure. At the 10th quantile, transit area had a significant negative association ( -0.03; CI -.05 - -0.002) with BMI. This association turned significantly positive above the 75th percentile. Park area was significantly associated with BMI at the 25th dynamic park measure (-61.32; CI -119.56 - -3.08).



Conclusion:
Literature has highlighted a need to better quantify cancer-related exposures by considering a person’s-built environment. Though there were inconsistent results, this paper aids in providing more insights on methods of using dynamic and static measures.