| Literature DB >> 34233987 |
Roula Zougheibe1, Beverly Jepson2, Richard Norman3, Ori Gudes4, Ashraf Dewan5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify, summarise and evaluate evidence on the correlation between perceived and actual neighbourhood safety (personal and road danger) and diverse forms of outdoor active mobility behaviour (ie, active play, exercise, and travel) among primary-school-aged children.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiology; public health; sports medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34233987 PMCID: PMC8264888 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Criteria for quality assessment and scoring for each criterion adapted from previous published systematic reviews
| Criteria | Description | Quality score per criterion | |
| Adopted quality assessment characteristics | 1. Study objectives | Are objectives clear? | (Yes=0.25-point No=0 of each criterion) |
| 2. Design | Was the study design appropriate for research undertaken? | ||
| 3. Target population | has the target population defined? | ||
| 4. Random sampling | Was a random sampling of the target population taken or was sampling appropriate for the study design? | ||
| 5. Study participant number | Was the number of participants at each stage reported? | (Yes=0.25-point No=0 of each criterion) | |
| 6. Participants’ inclusion/exclusion | Were criteria for inclusion and exclusion of the participants used? | ||
| 7. Study population | Was the study population sufficiently described, that is, sample size, gender, age, indicators of socioeconomic status? | ||
| 8. Participant recruitment | Was participant recruitment described or referred to? | ||
| 9. Response rate | Was the response rate 60% or more? | (Yes=0.25-point No=0 of each criterion) | |
| 10. Data collection | Did the study describe data collection, that is, by mail, by interview, objective measure? | ||
| 11. Data sources | Did the study describe source of data, that is, questionnaire, survey, focus group, accelerometer, GPS? | ||
| 12. Missing data | Were numbers/percentages of the participants with missing active behaviour data reported, and did at least 80% of enrolled participants provide complete data to include? | ||
| 13. Statistical method | Was it clear what was done to determine statistical or spatial statistical significance, for example, p-value, CI? | Yes=0.5 | |
| Methodological measures | 14. Active behaviour measures | Did the study objectively measure active mobility, that is, activity tracking. Spatial technology or web application? | GPS=0.25 |
| 15. Temporal active behaviour measures | Was measured active behaviour related to temporal characteristics, that is, weekends vs weekdays or before and after school? | Yes=0.5/No=0 | |
| 16. perceived safety measures characteristics | Did the study account for spatial or temporal features of the safety feelings? (Weekdays vs weekends or daytime (before and after school)) Or was measured safety conducted using geocoding? | Yes=0.5 | |
| 17. Area of exposures | Did the study delineate the exposed area ‘neighbourhood’ objectively or evaluate arbitrarily? | Objectively=0.5 | |
| 18. Evidence depicted temporal variation | Did the analysis account for the spatiotemporal behaviour of evidence? | Yes=1/No=0 | |
| 19. Adjustments (Cofounders) | Did the study account for cofounders of age, sex, ethnicity, and family characteristics? | Each is 0.25/Total=1 | |
GPS, global positioning system.
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram for scoping review of neighbourhood safety correlates to children’s outdoor active mobility behaviour (COAMB). GIS, geographic information system.
Figure 2Studies grouped by the type of active behaviour indicating studies’ level of methodological quality assessment. The x-axis represents studies as grouped by type of active behaviour examined in each study. y-axis denotes the number of studies giving the different levels of evidence ‘strength’ when total methodological review score was summed. Strength of evidence was robust when summing total score was ≥66.66% moderate sum was ≥50–<66.6% and poor when an accumulated score was <50%. Adapted from previous review by Schoeppe et al.24
Figure 3Correlation between individual (child) and family characteristics and children’s active mobility behaviour. The x-axis represents variables that accumulated the minimum number of studies to synthesise evidence of correlates between COAMB and sex/gender, age, access to a car, and ethnicity. y-axis denotes the number of studies that examined the correlation showing accumulated significance or non-significance. Note: *=in sex/gender, we saw variability by temporal characteristics (ie, changes between weekdays and weekends or time of the day (before and after school)) in three studies and reduced COAMB by distance travelled in one study. *=In Race/ethnicity, one study with a significant correlate depicted temporal change (i.e., weekend/weekdays).
Figure 4Perceived safety (parents and children) of personal and road danger correlates to reported and measured children’s active mobility behaviour. The x-axis represents examined variables that accumulated a minimum number of studies to synthesise evidence for perceived personal and road safety by parents or children. y-axis denotes the number of studies that accumulated significant or non-significance. Note:*=Parents’ perceived neighbourhood safety showing significant correlates included three studies depicting temporal characteristics (weekdays/weekends or before and after school), three studies varied by child’s sex/gender and one study by age. *=For children, perceived personal safety varied by gender in one study.