Background People living in highly walkable neighbourhoods tend to be more physically active and less likely to be obese. Whether walkable urban design reduces the future risk of diabetes is less clear.
Methods We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare 10-year diabetes incidence between residents living in high-walkability and low-walkability neighbourhoods within five urban regions in Ontario, Canada. Adults (aged 30–85 years) who were diabetes-free on 1 April 2002 were identified from administrative health databases and followed until 31 March 2012 (n=958 567). Within each region, weights reflecting the propensity to live in each neighbourhood type were created based on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities and healthcare utilisation and incorporated into region-specific Cox proportional hazards models.
Results Low-walkability areas were more affluent and had more South Asian residents (6.4%vs3.6%, p<0.001) but fewer residents from other minority groups (16.6%vs21.7%, p<0.001). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between low-walkability and high-walkability neighbourhoods after applying individual weights (standardised differences all <0.1). In each region, high walkability was associated with lower diabetes incidence among adults aged <65 years (overall weighted incidence: 8.2vs9.2 per 1000; HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), but not among adults aged ≥65 years (weighted incidence: 20.7vs19.5 per 1000; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12). Findings were consistent regardless of income and immigration status.
Conclusions Younger adults living in high-walkability neighbourhoods had a lower 10-year incidence of diabetes than similarly aged adults living in low-walkability neighbourhoods. Urban designs that support walking may have important benefits for diabetes prevention.
- cohort studies
- environmental health
- epidemiological methods
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors GLB had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: GLB, MIC and PCA. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: GLB, MIC, JL, GSF, AJ, LCR, RHG, RM, PG and PCA. Drafting of the manuscript: GLB and AJ. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: GLB, MIC, JL, GSF, AJ, LCR, RHG, RM, PG and PCA. Statistical analysis: JL and PCA. Obtained funding: GLB. Administrative, technical or material support: GSF and AJ. Study supervision: GLB.
Funding This study was funded through an open operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval This protocol received ethical approval from ICES and the institutional review boards at St. Michael’s Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.