↓ Skip to main content

Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: an umbrella review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
90 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 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
Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: an umbrella review
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5870-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. L. Bird, J. O. Ige, P. Pilkington, A. Pinto, C. Petrokofsky, J. Burgess-Allen

Abstract

The built and natural environment and health are inextricably linked. However, there is considerable debate surrounding the strength and quality of the evidence base underpinning principles of good practice for built and natural environment design in promoting health. This umbrella review aimed to assess relationships between the built and natural environment and health, concentrating on five topic areas: neighbourhood design, housing, food environment, natural and sustainable environment, and transport. A structured search was conducted for quantitative systematic reviews and stakeholder reviews published between January 2005 and April 2016. Seven databases and the websites of 15 relevant and respected stakeholder organisations known to publish review-level documentation were searched. Searches were limited to English-language publications and duplicate references were removed. Evidence quality and strength was appraised using validated techniques. Findings were used to develop a diagram for each topic area, illustrating relationships between built and natural environment planning principles and health-related outcomes. A total of 117 systematic reviews and review-level documents were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was mixed; much of the evidence examined relied on findings from cross-sectional studies, making it difficult to draw clear causal links between built environment exposures and health-related impacts and outcomes. Fourteen actionable planning principles associated with positive health-related outcomes were identified across the five topic areas. For example, neighbourhoods that enhanced walkability, were complete and compact in design, and those which enhanced connectivity through safe and efficient infrastructure were associated with better health-related outcomes relating to physical activity, social engagement, mental health, perceptions of crime, and road traffic collisions. Evidence for the effectiveness of planning principles across different topic areas and on reducing health inequalities was sparse and inconclusive. Findings provide an up-to-date overview of relationships between the built and natural environment and health and present logical, evidence-based messages to aid communication between public health and planning professionals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 315 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 14%
Student > Master 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 4%
Other 41 13%
Unknown 113 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 29 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 8%
Environmental Science 19 6%
Design 12 4%
Other 66 21%
Unknown 135 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 05 June 2021.
All research outputs
#682,795
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#689
of 16,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,581
of 336,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#14
of 326 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 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 16,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 336,820 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 326 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.