42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating the impact of improvements in urban green space on older adults’ physical activity and wellbeing: protocol for a natural experimental study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Creating or improving urban green space has the potential to be an effective, sustainable and far-reaching way to increase physical activity and improve other aspects of wellbeing in the population. However, there is a dearth of well-conducted natural experimental studies examining the causal effect of changing urban green space on physical activity and wellbeing. This is especially true in older adults and in the United Kingdom. This paper describes a natural experimental study to evaluate the effect of four small-scale urban street greening interventions on older adults’ physical activity and wellbeing over a 1-year period, relative to eight matched comparison sites. All sites are located in deprived urban neighbourhoods in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

          Methods

          Components of the interventions include tree and flower planting, and artificial tree decorations. Eight unimproved comparison sites were selected based on a systematic process of matching using several known objective and subjective environmental correlates of physical activity in older adults. The outcome measures are physical activity and two other behavioural indicators of wellbeing (Connect: connecting with other people; and Take Notice: taking notice of the environment), collected using a newly developed observation tool. The primary outcome is Take Notice behaviour due to largest effects on this behaviour being anticipated from improvements in the aesthetic quality of green space at the intervention sites. Baseline data collection occurred in September 2017 before the interventions were installed in November 2017. Follow-up data collection will be repeated in February/ March 2018 (6 months) and September 2018 (12 months).

          Discussion

          The present study permits a rare opportunity to evaluate the causal effects of small-scale changes in urban green space in an understudied population and setting. Although the interventions are expected to have small effects on the outcomes, the present study contributes to developing natural experiment methodology in this field by addressing key methodological weaknesses causing high risk of bias in previous natural experimental studies. Key improvements to reduce risk of bias in the present study are rigorous matching of multiple comparison sites and appropriate statistical control of key confounders.

          Trial registration

          Retrospectively registered with study ID NCT03575923. Date of registration: 3 July 2018.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5812-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

          Background There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes. Results Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies. Conclusions Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The effect of season and weather on physical activity: a systematic review.

            This study reviewed previous studies to explore the effect of season, and consequently weather, on levels of physical activity. Thirty-seven primary studies (published 1980-2006) representing a total of 291883 participants (140482 male and 152085 female) from eight different countries are described, and the effect of season on moderate levels of physical activity is considered. Upon review of the evidence, it appears that levels of physical activity vary with seasonality, and the ensuing effect of poor or extreme weather has been identified as a barrier to participation in physical activity among various populations. Therefore, previous studies that did not recognize the effect of weather and season on physical activity may, in fact, be poor representations of this behaviour. Future physical activity interventions should consider how weather promotes or hinders such behaviour. Providing indoor opportunities during the cold and wet months may foster regular physical activity behaviours year round.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

              Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 (0) 161 275 2605 , jack.benton@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
                jamie.anderson@manchester.ac.uk
                sarah.cotterill@manchester.ac.uk
                matthew.dennis@manchester.ac.uk
                sarah.lindley@manchester.ac.uk
                david.french@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                27 July 2018
                27 July 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 923
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, , University of Manchester, ; Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Urban Institute, Department of Geography, School of Environment, Education and Development, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000121662407, GRID grid.5379.8, Department of Geography, School of Education, Environment and Development, , University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7129-550X
                Article
                5812
                10.1186/s12889-018-5812-z
                6062989
                30053861
                22e9a00a-a985-4862-9531-e1aca4515ca0
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 26 February 2018
                : 6 July 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000270, Natural Environment Research Council;
                Award ID: NE/N013530/1
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269, Economic and Social Research Council;
                Award ID: ES/P000665/1
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Public health
                physical activity,wellbeing,urban green space,older adults,natural experiment,protocol
                Public health
                physical activity, wellbeing, urban green space, older adults, natural experiment, protocol

                Comments

                Comment on this article