| Article key | Lachowycz_2011 |
| Title | Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence |
| Year | 2011 |
| Review type | systematic review |
| Main topic | Association between greenspace and obesity |
| Subjects area(s) | Environment and nature, Health and well-being |
| Built environment scale | Urban area / Urban system |
| Application(s) | Human interactions and community engagement, Evaluation |
| Geographically focused | no |
| Prisma diagram used | no |
| Study focus start | 2000 |
| Study focus end | 2010 |
| Search string | Green Space Related: Greenspace* OR green space* OR greenness/greeness OR greenery OR parkland OR wilderness OR vegetation (closely adjacent to) natural OR open land OR public land OR community land OR municipal land OR natural land OR wild land OR open space* OR public space* OR community space* OR municipal space* OR natural space* OR wild space* OR public garden* OR municipal garden* OR community garden* OR city garden* OR botanic garden* OR public park* OR municipal park* OR community park* OR city park* OR park land* OR park availability OR urban park* OR park area* OR park access* OR botanic park* OR wood* OR natural (closely adjacent to) environment* OR natural (closely adjacent to) place* OR natural (closely adjacent to) facilities OR natural (closely adjacent to) neighbourhood*/neighborhood* OR path* (closely adjacent to) walk* OR path* (closely adjacent to) cycl* OR path* (closely adjacent to) green OR trail* (closely adjacent to) walk* OR trail* (closely adjacent to) cycl* OR trail* (closely adjacent to) green OR trail* (closely adjacent to) recreation* OR belt (closely adjacent to) green OR wild area* OR green area* OR natural area* OR neighbourhood environment* OR neighborhood/neighborhood environment* OR living environment* OR residential environment* OR environmental feature* OR physical environment* OR physical activity resource* OR physical activity destination* OR recreation opportunities OR recreation destination* OR recreation facilities OR recreation resource* OR natural amenties OR physical activity amenities OR physical characteristic* OR urban design OR built environment* OR community design* OR physical character* OR walkability Obesity Related: Physical activity search terms exercise OR physical OR fitness OR *activ* OR walk* OR sedentary Weight status search terms obesity OR bmi OR adiposity OR body fat" OR body mass index OR waist to hip OR body fat OR skinfold OR waist circumference OR body composition OR healthy weight OR overweight OR over-weight OR over weight Obesity-related health outcomes Metabolic syndrome OR insulin resistan* OR (diabet* AND Type 2) OR dyslipidaemia OR “hypertens OR coronary OR CHD OR cardio* OR cardiac OR stroke OR heart disease* OR transient ischaemic attack* OR cancer* OR respiratory OR liver disease* OR hepatic disease* OR liver cirrhosis OR gallbladder disease* OR gall bladder disease* OR*arthriti* OR joint disease* OR bone health OR impoten* OR infertile* OR fertility OR health status OR health state* OR health outcome* OR health behaviour* OR health behavior* OR disease* OR mortality OR death* OR life expectancy |
| No. of original sources | 60 |
| Synthesis method | qualitative |
| Quantitative map included | no |
| Conflict of interest | not declared specifically |
| Comments | Full details of keywords and search is provided in a supplementary document. |
| Search sources |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Keywords used in search | active, adiposity, amenities, arthritis, belt, BMI, body composition, body fat, body mass index, bone health, botanic, built environment, cancer, cardiac, cardio, characteristic, CHD, city, community, coronary, cycle, death, diabetics, disease, dyslipidaemia, environment, excercise, facilities, fertility, fitness, gall bladder disease, gallbladder disease, garden, green, green space, greenery, greenness, health behaviour, health outcome, health status, healthy weight, heart disease, hepatic disease, hypertens, impotence, infertile, insulin resistance, iver cirrhosis, joint disease, land, life expectancy, liver diseas, living, metabolic syndrome, mortality, municipal, natural, natural, neighbourhood, obesity, open, overweight, park, parkland, path, physical, physical activity, public, ransientischaemic attack, recreation, residential, respiratory, sedentary, skinfold, space, stroke, trail, type 2, urban design, vegetation, waist circumference, waist to hip, walk, walkability, wild, wilderness, wood |
| Authors |
|
| Funding sources | No funding sources recorded |
| Article type | Journal article |
| Article category | Text |
| Geographical scale | International |
| Language | English |
| Chapter or part | |
| Conference date | |
| Conference venue | |
| Published date | 2011-02-23 |
| Edition | |
| Issue | 501 |
| Journal | Obesity Reviews |
| Pagination | 183-189 |
| Peer reviewed | yes |
| Publication place | |
| Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
| School / department or centre | |
| Series volume no. | |
| Series title | |
| Series sort no. | |
| Volume | 12 |
| Website owner | |
| Copyrights of article | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment |
| Licences of article | |
| Identifiers of article | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x, ISBN: 1467-789X, ISSN: 14677881, PMID: 21348919 |
| 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? | 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. | not provided |
| QA question 3 | Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. | empirical studies |
| 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 |
| 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. | 20% of papers screened by second reviewer (agreement rate 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. | 20% of papers screened by second reviewer (agreement rate not reported) |
| 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 S3 |
| 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? | 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. RoB mentioned or not sufficiently assessed (e.g. if multiple sources of bias potentially present, but not all assessed). | partially via QA of individall studies |
| 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? | 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. | general 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. | Table 2, 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. | Funding sources and disclosure of interests declarations included |
| 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. | B | no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present |
| 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? | medium | no protocol; some search details missing |