Does the Installation or the Improvement of Existing Outdoor Parks Increase Physical Activity Levels? A Systematic Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Investment in outdoor parks is proposed as a promising large-scale strategy to promote physical activity (PA). This study aimed to systematically review the impact of park renovations or installing new ones in increasing PA. Searches were conducted using predefined terms in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) in March 2022. Studies examining the effectiveness of park renovations or developing new ones in increasing PA and having control or comparison were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Data were extracted from the included records using a predefined extraction table. The database search yielded 959 records, and 26 were included. For park renovations (n = 17), 11 (65%) studies presented findings supporting a positive effect on PA. The other six (35%) studies found no PA benefits when compared to control or pre-renovations/improvement levels. Regarding new installations (n = 9), five (56%) studies presented improvements in PA, and four (44%) did not. A promising positive impact of park renovations and new installations on park use and PA was observed. The review findings reflect the need to understand the context, daily routines, and interests of the surrounding population before renovating or installing new outdoor parks.

Related collections

Most cited references 55

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12660 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1·9 million participants

Regina Guthold, Gretchen Stevens, Leanne Riley … (2018)

Insufficient physical activity is a leading risk factor for non-communicable diseases, and has a negative effect on mental health and quality of life. We describe levels of insufficient physical activity across countries, and estimate global and regional trends.

0 comments Cited 1254 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

Connie Schardt, Martha Adams, Thomas Owens … (2007)

Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.