Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29644534›Full record

ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2018

Co-designing Urban Living Solutions to Improve Older People's Mobility and Well-Being.

Steve Cinderby, Howard Cambridge, Katia Attuyer, Mark Bevan, Karen Croucher, Rose Gilroy, David Swallow

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Urban Green Space and Subjective Well-Being of Older People: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Living in an Age-Friendly Community: Evidence from a Masterplanned Development in Southwest Sydney.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  4. A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  5. Combining the Digital, Social and Physical Layer to Create Age-Friendly Cities and Communities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Steve CinderbyUniversity of York, York, UK. steve.cinderby@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8394-2831
Howard CambridgeStockholm Environment Institute, Environment Department, University of York, York, UK.
Katia AttuyerDepartment of Geography, University College London, London, UK.
Mark BevanCentre for Housing Policy, University of York, York, UK.
Karen CroucherCentre for Housing Policy, University of York, York, UK.
Rose GilroyPlanning and Policy, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE1 7RU, UK.
David SwallowThe Paciello Group, 20-22 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JS, UK.
University of York · GBNewcastle University · GBStockholm Environment Institute · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobility is a key aspect of active ageing enabling participation and autonomy into later life. Remaining active brings multiple physical but also social benefits leading to higher levels of well-being. With globally increasing levels of urbanisation alongside demographic shifts meaning in many parts of the world this urban population will be older people, the challenge is how cities should evolve to enable so-called active ageing. This paper reports on a co-design study with 117 participants investigating the interaction of existing urban spaces and infrastructure on mobility and well-being for older residents (aged 55 + years) in three cities. A mixed method approach was trialled to identify locations beneficial to subjective well-being and participant-led solutions to urban mobility challenges. Spatial analysis was used to identify key underlying factors in locations and infrastructure that promoted or compromised mobility and well-being for participants. Co-designed solutions were assessed for acceptability or co-benefits amongst a wider cross-section of urban residents (n = 233) using online and face-to-face surveys in each conurbation. Our analysis identified three critical intersecting and interacting thematic problems for urban mobility amongst older people: The quality of physical infrastructure; issues around the delivery, governance and quality of urban systems and services; and the attitudes and behaviors of individuals that older people encounter. This identified complexity reinforces the need for policy responses that may not necessarily involve design or retrofit measures, but instead might challenge perceptions and behaviors of use and access to urban space. Our co-design results further highlight that solutions need to move beyond the generic and placeless, instead embedding specific locally relevant solutions in inherently geographical spaces, populations and processes to ensure they relate to the intricacies of place.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyMobility LimitationPersons with DisabilitiesAgedAged, 80 and overCitiesEnvironment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic HousingSurveys and QuestionnairesUrban PopulationActive ageingMobilityOlder peopleUrbanisationWell-being

Identifiers

PMID29644534
PMCPMC5993707
OpenAlexW2797074539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.