Barnett_2017 - Built environmental correlates of older adults’ total physical activity and walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Basic Article Info:

Article key Barnett_2017
Title Built environmental correlates of older adults’ total physical activity and walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Year 2017
Review type meta-analysis
Main topic Effects of attributes of built environment on physical activity of adults
Subjects area(s) Social and behavioural, Health and well-being
Built environment scale Community / Population group
Application(s) Policy making, Practice, Implementation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used yes
Study focus start 2000
Study focus end 2016
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 100
Synthesis method qualitative + quantitative
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
Web of Sciences Online Database Web of Science is an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information, now maintained by Clarivate Analytics, that provides a comprehensive citation search. https://apps.webofknowledge.com
CINAHL Online Database The authoritative resource for nursing and allied health professionals, students, educators and researchers. This database provides indexing for 2,960 journals from the fields of nursing and allied health. The database contains more than 2,000,000 records dating back to 1981.shed by Lippincott & Wilkins. http://www.southside.edu/content/cinal-online-version-cumulative-index-nursing-allied-health-literature
PubMed Online Database PubMed comprises more than 27 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
SPORTDiscus Online Database SPORTDiscus with Full Text is the premier source of literature for sports and sports medicine journals, providing full-text content from many well-known and respected sources. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/sportdiscus-with-full-text
TRIS - Transportation Research Information Services 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

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Jelle Van Cauwenberg Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University Watersportlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent Belgium
Jelle Van Cauwenberg Department of Human Biometry and Biomechanics, Vrije Universiteit Brusse Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels Belgium
Jelle Van Cauwenberg Department of Public Health, Ghent University De Pintelaan 185 (Block A), B-9000 Ghent Belgium
Jelle Van Cauwenberg Research Foundation Flanders Egmontstraat 5, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Belgium
Jelle Van Cauwenberg 5Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO) Egmontstraat 5, B-1000 Brussels Belgium
David W. Barnett* Institute for Health and Ageing Australian Catholic University, Level 6, 215 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Australia
Anthony Barnett Institute for Health and Ageing Australian Catholic University, Level 6, 215 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Australia
Andrea Nathan Institute for Health and Ageing Australian Catholic University, Level 6, 215 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Australia
Ester Cerin ester.cerin@acu.edu.au Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University Australia
Ester Cerin ester.cerin@acu.edu.au Institute for Health and Ageing Australian Catholic University, Level 6, 215 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Australia
Ester Cerin ester.cerin@acu.edu.au School of Public Health The University of Hong Kong, 7 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, China China
Ester Cerin ester.cerin@acu.edu.au Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute 75 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. Australia
Ester Cerin ester.cerin@acu.edu.au Institute of Human Performance, The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Hong Kong

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-08-07
Edition
Issue 1
Journal International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Pagination 425-452
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher BioMed Central
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 41
Website owner
Copyrights of article Authors
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1186/s12966-017-0558-z, ISSN: 1479-5868, PMID: 28784183


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. registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42016051227)
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. cross-sectional, longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs (no justification)
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 1 = “Yes” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g. language), AND searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies, searched trial/study registries, included/consulted content experts in the field, where relevant, searched for grey literature, conducted search within 24 months of completion of the review. 6 databases, web, authors, references and reviews
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to include OR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80%), with the remainder selected by one reviewer. 2-3 reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers achieved consensus on which data to extract from included studies OR two reviewers extracted data from a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 8 %), with the remainder extracted by one reviewer. 2 reviewers participated
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. Additional file 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? 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). custom quality scale
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? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Requirements for “Yes” only partially fulfilled. Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. p-values for each examined combination of environmental attribute and PA outcome
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? 1 = “Yes” = included only low risk of bias studies OR the authors performed analyses to investigate possible impact of RoB on summary estimates of effect. quality scores used as weights in 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. subset analyses
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? 0 =”No” = The authors did not perform any tests for publication bias and did not discuss potential impact of publication bias. not provided
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, methods and results in SI, comprehensive search and extractions, quality assessment performed
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. meta-analysis 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, methods and results in SI, comprehensive search and extractions, quality assessment performed