20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Restructuring the built environment to change adult health behaviors: a scoping review integrated with behavior change frameworks

      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

          Built environment restructuring can improve public health through increased opportunity for healthy behaviors. Behavioral science targets individual health behaviors within place, suggesting the potential to integrate these approaches. This scoping review was one of the first to summarise the impact built environment restructuring has on health outcomes and behaviors and integrate these findings with the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior model and Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change. Potential studies were identified from 12 academic databases in urban design, psychology and public health. Search parameters involved 50 environment types, for example green space or healthy cities, combined with both an intervention (e.g. green infrastructure, active transport) and a measurable health outcome (e.g. exercise, wellbeing). Searches were limited to North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Of 536 potential studies reviewed against defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, 23 contributed to the findings. Evidence supported the positive influence of restructuring on varied health outcomes, many of which were drivers and domains of health behavior. Most studies indicated a clear contribution to increased physical activity. Recommendations include the need for explicit communication of theories guiding restructuring project design, consideration of health outcomes beyond physical activity, and better investigation of unanticipated barriers to health behaviors arising from built environment restructuring projects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

          Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space.

            Greening of vacant urban land may affect health and safety. The authors conducted a decade-long difference-in-differences analysis of the impact of a vacant lot greening program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on health and safety outcomes. "Before" and "after" outcome differences among treated vacant lots were compared with matched groups of control vacant lots that were eligible but did not receive treatment. Control lots from 2 eligibility pools were randomly selected and matched to treated lots at a 3:1 ratio by city section. Random-effects regression models were fitted, along with alternative models and robustness checks. Across 4 sections of Philadelphia, 4,436 vacant lots totaling over 7.8 million square feet (about 725,000 m(2)) were greened from 1999 to 2008. Regression-adjusted estimates showed that vacant lot greening was associated with consistent reductions in gun assaults across all 4 sections of the city (P < 0.001) and consistent reductions in vandalism in 1 section of the city (P < 0.001). Regression-adjusted estimates also showed that vacant lot greening was associated with residents' reporting less stress and more exercise in select sections of the city (P < 0.01). Once greened, vacant lots may reduce certain crimes and promote some aspects of health. Limitations of the current study are discussed. Community-based trials are warranted to further test these findings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A health map for the local human habitat

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cities Health
                Cities Health
                RCAH
                rcah20
                Cities & Health
                Routledge
                2374-8834
                2374-8842
                2018
                20 February 2019
                : 2
                : 2
                : 198-211
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland , Sunderland, UK
                [b ]School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University , Newcastle, UK
                [c ]Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University , Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
                [d ]School of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland , Sunderland, UK
                Author notes
                CONTACT Stephanie Wilkie stephanie.wilkie@ 123456sunderland.ac.uk School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland , SunderlandSR1 3SD, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2829-9959
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6080-2238
                Article
                1574954
                10.1080/23748834.2019.1574954
                6777541
                31650034
                afd5d615-54c5-40e7-bb33-77ad196115d6
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 18 September 2018
                : 16 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, References: 86, Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Council 10.13039/501100000265
                Award ID: MR/K02325X/1
                Funded by: Public Health England 10.13039/501100002141
                Award ID: No Grant Number
                This work was supported by the Public Health England Behavioural Insights Team (PHE BIT). Professor Jonathan Ling is a partially funded staff member of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. This article presents findings from independent research funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research (SPHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Fuse is a UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding for Fuse from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, under the auspices of the UKCRC, is gratefully acknowledged.
                Categories
                Original Scholarship - Evidence Review

                built environment,behavior change,com-b,physical activity,public health,urban planning

                Comments

                Comment on this article