Smith_2017 - Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity

Basic Article Info:

Article key Smith_2017
Title Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Effects of environmental interventions on physical activity
Subjects area(s) Transport, Social and behavioural, Health and well-being
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s) Policy making, Human interactions and community engagement, Design
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 1979
Study focus end 2015
Search string AB,TI("active transport*" OR walk* OR cyclist* OR bik* OR bicycl* OR cyclist OR cycling OR "active travel*" OR commute* OR "physical activ*" OR "physically active" OR "transport mode" OR "transportation mode" OR "travel mode" OR pedestrian* OR "traffic volume" OR "traffic count") AND AB,TI(streetscape OR "self-explaining road*" OR "self explaining road*" OR neighbourhood OR neighborhood OR "physical environment*" OR "urban environment*" OR "suburban environment*" OR "built environment*" OR "community environment*" OR "travel environment*" OR "street environment*" OR "road environment*" OR "shared space*" OR "traffic calm*" OR "smart growth" OR "new urbanism" OR "urban form" OR "urban design" OR walkability OR "residential density" OR "community design" OR "city planning" OR "environment design" OR "urban renewal" OR sidewalk OR footpath OR "green space*" OR "recreational facilit*" OR "public transit" OR "public transport*" OR "block size*" OR "street connectivity" OR "open space*" OR woonerf OR "naked street*" OR "sustainable safety" OR (cycl* AND trail*) OR (bik* AND trail*) OR (bicycle* AND trail*) OR (walk* AND trail*) OR (pedestrian* AND trail*) OR infrastructure OR "community-based" OR (route AND school) OR (bik* AND (path* OR lane*)) OR (bicycle* AND (path* OR lane)) OR (cycl* AND (path* OR lane)) OR cycleway) AND AB,TI(intervention* OR longitudinal OR follow* OR chang* OR effect* OR initiative* OR experiment* OR evaluate* OR evidence OR impact* OR "before-after" OR "time-series" OR program* OR "prospective stud*")
No. of original sources 28
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Proquest Online Database ProQuest is committed to empowering researchers and librarians around the world. Its innovative information content and technologies increase the productivity of students, scholars, professionals and the libraries that serve them. Through partnerships with content holders, ProQuest preserves rich, vast and varied information – whether historical archives or today’s scientific breakthroughs – and packages it with digital technologies that enhance its discovery, sharing and management. For academic, corporate, government, school and public libraries, as well as professional researchers, ProQuest provides services that enable strategic acquisition, management and discovery of information collections. http://www.proquest.com/
Ovid Online Database Ovid is an internationally recognized leader in medical information services, providing our customers a customizable suite of content, tools, and services to fuel medical discoveries, patient care, and student research. http://www.ovid.com
Transport Research International Documentation Online Database TRID is an integrated database that combines the records from TRB’s Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) Database and the OECD’s Joint Transport Research Centre’s International Transport Research Documentation (ITRD) Database. TRID provides access to more than one million records of transportation research worldwide. https://trid.trb.org/
Keywords used in search environment, experimental, longitudinal, natural experiments, physical activity, prospective, retrospective, travel modes

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Melody Smith* melody.smith@auckland.ac.nz School of Nursing, The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand New Zeland
Jamie Hosking School of Population Health, The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand New Zeland
Alistair Woodward School of Population Health, The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand New Zeland
Karen Witten SHORE and Whariki Research Centre, School of Public Health, Massey University Box 6137, Wellesley Street, Auckland, PO, New Zealand New Zeland
Alexandra MacMillan Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago Box 56, Dunedin, PO, 9054, New Zealand New Zeland
Adrian Field Dovetail Consulting Ltd Box 78-146, Grey Lynn, Auckland, PO, 1245, New Zealand New Zeland
Peter Baas Transport Engineering Research New Zealand Limited Box 11029, Auckland, PO, 1542, New Zealand New Zeland
Hamish Mackie Mackie Consulting Limited Box 106525, Auckland, PO, 1143, New Zealand New Zeland

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment 15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011 PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140 New Zealand New Zeland


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-11-16
Edition
Issue 1
Journal International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Pagination 158
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher BioMed Central
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 14
Website owner
Copyrights of article Authors
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1186/s12966-017-0613-9


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. PROSPERO protocol written and published on figshare
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. quantitative empirical studies with various designs
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). 5 databases and references
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. 1 reviewer performed main screening, second reviewer re-assessed 10% subset (agreement level not reported)
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. duplicate study assessment mentioned
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table 1
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 1 = “Yes” = specifically mentions RoB assessment of individual included studies. Evaluation of Public Health Practice Projects Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP)
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = included only low risk of bias studies OR the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results. Table 2, Discussion
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. both conflict of interests and funding statements provided
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. A protocol, detailed descriptions and summaries
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? low protocol, more than 1 independent reviewers involved, quality of studies assessed and considered