Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26883235›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Using kernel density estimation to understand the influence of neighbourhood destinations on BMI.

Tania L King, Rebecca J Bentley, Lukar E Thornton, Anne M Kavanagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Atomic force nanorheology forFaraday discussions · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tania L KingDepartment of Gender and Women's Health, Centre for Health and Society, Academic Centre for Health Inequity, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rebecca J BentleyDepartment of Gender and Women's Health, Centre for Health and Society, Academic Centre for Health Inequity, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lukar E ThorntonCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Anne M KavanaghDepartment of Gender and Women's Health, Centre for Health and Society, Academic Centre for Health Inequity, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLittle is known about how the distribution of destinations in the local neighbourhood is related to body mass index (BMI). Kernel density estimation (KDE) is a spatial analysis technique that accounts for the location of features relative to each other. Using KDE, this study investigated whether individuals living near destinations (shops and service facilities) that are more intensely distributed rather than dispersed, have lower BMIs. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingA cross-sectional study of 2349 residents of 50 urban areas in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia.

methodsDestinations were geocoded, and kernel density estimates of destination intensity were created using kernels of 400, 800 and 1200 m. Using multilevel linear regression, the association between destination intensity (classified in quintiles Q1(least)-Q5(most)) and BMI was estimated in models that adjusted for the following confounders: age, sex, country of birth, education, dominant household occupation, household type, disability/injury and area disadvantage. Separate models included a physical activity variable.

resultsFor kernels of 800 and 1200 m, there was an inverse relationship between BMI and more intensely distributed destinations (compared to areas with least destination intensity). Effects were significant at 1200 m: Q4, β -0.86, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.13, p=0.022; Q5, β -1.03 95% CI -1.65 to -0.41, p=0.001. Inclusion of physical activity in the models attenuated effects, although effects remained marginally significant for Q5 at 1200 m: β -0.77 95% CI -1.52, -0.02, p=0.045.

conclusionsThis study conducted within urban Melbourne, Australia, found that participants living in areas of greater destination intensity within 1200 m of home had lower BMIs. Effects were partly explained by physical activity. The results suggest that increasing the intensity of destination distribution could reduce BMI levels by encouraging higher levels of physical activity.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexEnvironment DesignMotor ActivityResidence CharacteristicsAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegression AnalysisUrban PopulationEPIDEMIOLOGYPUBLIC HEALTHSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID26883235
PMCPMC4762106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.