Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: Characteristics of residential areas and transportational walking among frail and non-frail Dutch elderly: does the size of the area matter?

Back to article

  1. Erratum to: Etman A, Kamphuis CBM, Prins R, Burdorf A, Pierik FH and Van Lenthe FJ. Characteristics of residential areas and transportational walking amongfrail and non-frail Dutch elderly: does the size of the area matter? Int J Health Geogr. 2014 Mar 4;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-13-7.

    Astrid Etman, Erasmus Medical Center

    27 August 2015

    After publication of this paper, the authors have determined that the estimates for functional features were incorrect and that the log-transformed beta-coefficients were somewhat misinterpreted. For the corrected tables, please contact Astrid Etman (a.etman@erasmusmc.nl). The information provided in the text of the article is correct except for some sentences in the Abstract, Results section, and Discussion
    section. In the Abstract, the first two sentences of the results paragraph should read like this: An increase in aesthetics (e.g. absence of litter and graffiti) within 800 and 1200 meter buffers, and an increase of one destination per buffer of 400 and 800 meters were associated with more transportational walking, up to a 2.83-fold increase per two weeks (CI 1.12-7.32; p<0.05). Better functional features were associated with less transportational walking.

    With regard to the conclusion of the paper, we formerly concluded that three area characteristics (aesthetics, destinations, and functional features) were associated with an increase in transportational walking, however, this should be two area characteristics, namely aesthetics and destinations. Therefore, the conclusion section of the Abstract should be read like this: More destinations within 400-800 meter buffers, and better aesthetics of 800-1200 meter buffers were associated with more transportational walking among community-dwelling older persons. Better functional features were associated with less transportational walking. The importance of area characteristics for transportational walking differs by area size, but not by frailty level. Neighbourhood improvements may affect transportational walking among older persons, thereby perhaps contributing to living longer independently.

    In the Results section, it should read that frail persons had more functional features and destinations within a buffer up to 1200 meters compared to non-frail participants. Further, an increase in the aesthetics score of 1 point within 800 and 1200 meter buffers was found to be associated with respectively a 2.3-fold and 2.8-fold increase in minutes of transportational walking. An increase of one functional feature per street within 400 meters was associated with 26% less minutes of transportational walking in two weeks. No significant association was found for safety. An increase of one destination per buffer within 400 and 800 meters was associated with an increase in minutes of transportational walking per two weeks of respectively 5% and 2%.

    The first sentence of the Discussion section should read like: More destinations within 400-800 meter buffers, and better aesthetics of 800-1200 meter buffers were associated with more transportational walking among community-dwelling older persons. Better functional features were associated with less transportational walking. Furthermore, in the Discussion section it should read that a possible explanation for the finding that destinations were particularly important for transportational walking in small buffer sizes may be that, since older adults are generally less functionally fit than their younger peers, they
    may use a smaller area around their residence, and only use destinations in the close vicinity of their residence.

    The Conclusion section should be read like: Better aesthetic features and more destinations in the residential area of community-dwelling older persons were associated with more transportational walking. Better functional features were associated with less transportational walking. The importance of area characteristics for transportational walking differed by size of the environmental area, but not by frailty level. Increasing the number of destinations within the area close by elderly’s residences (up to 400 and 800 meters respectively), and improving the aesthetics of a larger area up to 1200 meters, could increase their levels of transportational walking. Subsequent studies are needed to investigate whether this also results in living longer independently.

    We sincerely regret any inconvenience these errors may have caused.







     

    Competing interests

    None declared

Advertisement