↓ Skip to main content

Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
66 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
342 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
714 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0613-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melody Smith, Jamie Hosking, Alistair Woodward, Karen Witten, Alexandra MacMillan, Adrian Field, Peter Baas, Hamish Mackie

Abstract

Evidence is mounting to suggest a causal relationship between the built environment and people's physical activity behaviours, particularly active transport. The evidence base has been hindered to date by restricted consideration of cost and economic factors associated with built environment interventions, investigation of socioeconomic or ethnic differences in intervention effects, and an inability to isolate the effect of the built environment from other intervention types. The aims of this systematic review were to identify which environmental interventions increase physical activity in residents at the local level, and to build on the evidence base by considering intervention cost, and the differential effects of interventions by ethnicity and socioeconomic status. A systematic database search was conducted in June 2015. Articles were eligible if they reported a quantitative empirical study (natural experiment or a prospective, retrospective, experimental, or longitudinal research) investigating the relationship between objectively measured built environment feature(s) and physical activity and/or travel behaviours in children or adults. Quality assessment was conducted and data on intervention cost and whether the effect of the built environment differed by ethnicity or socioeconomic status were extracted. Twenty-eight studies were included in the review. Findings showed a positive effect of walkability components, provision of quality parks and playgrounds, and installation of or improvements in active transport infrastructure on active transport, physical activity, and visits or use of settings. There was some indication that infrastructure improvements may predominantly benefit socioeconomically advantaged groups. Studies were commonly limited by selection bias and insufficient controlling for confounders. Heterogeneity in study design and reporting limited comparability across studies or any clear conclusions to be made regarding intervention cost. Improving neighbourhood walkability, quality of parks and playgrounds, and providing adequate active transport infrastructure is likely to generate positive impacts on activity in children and adults. The possibility that the benefits of infrastructure improvements may be inequitably distributed requires further investigation. Opportunities to improve the quality of evidence exist, including strategies to improve response rates and representativeness, use of valid and reliable measurement tools, cost-benefit analyses, and adequate controlling for confounders.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 714 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 714 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 122 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 111 16%
Researcher 97 14%
Student > Bachelor 56 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 6%
Other 121 17%
Unknown 167 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 106 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 78 11%
Sports and Recreations 53 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 7%
Environmental Science 42 6%
Other 163 23%
Unknown 220 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2022.
All research outputs
#604,429
of 21,712,946 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#200
of 1,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,945
of 441,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#33
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,712,946 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.