Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34407828›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of health geographics2021

Exploring the potential for planning support systems to bridge the research-translation gap between public health and urban planning.

Paula Hooper, Claire Boulange, Gustavo Arciniegas, Sarah Foster, Julian Bolleter, Chris Pettit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of health geographics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. How to Achieve a Healthy City: a Scoping Review with Ten City Examples.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Paula HooperAustralian Urban Design Research Centre, School of Design, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009, Perth, Western Australia. paula.hooper@uwa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4459-2901
Claire BoulangeKPMG Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Gustavo ArciniegasGeo-Col GIS and Collaborative Planning, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sarah FosterCentre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Julian BolleterAustralian Urban Design Research Centre, School of Design, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009, Perth, Western Australia.
Chris PettitCity Futures Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is consensus that planning professionals need clearer guidance on the features that are likely to produce optimal community-wide health benefits. However, much of this evidence resides in academic literature and not in tools accessible to the diverse group of professionals shaping our cities. Incorporating health-related metrics into the planning support systems (PSS) provides an opportunity to apply empirical evidence on built environment relationships with health-related outcomes to inform real-world land use and transportation planning decisions. This paper explores the role of planning support systems (PSS) to facilitate the translation and application of health evidence into urban planning and design practices to create healthy, liveable communities.

methodsA review of PSS software and a literature review of studies featuring a PSS modelling built environmental features and health impact assessment for designing and creating healthy urban areas was undertaken. Customising existing software, a health impact PSS (the Urban Health Check) was then piloted with a real-world planning application to evaluate the usefulness and benefits of a health impact PSS for demonstrating and communicating potential health impacts of design scenarios in planning practice.

resultsEleven PSS software applications were identified, of which three were identified as having the capability to undertake health impact analyses. Three studies met the inclusion criteria of presenting a planning support system customised to support health impact assessment with health impacts modelled or estimated due to changes to the built environment. Evaluation results indicated the Urban Health Check PSS helped in four key areas: visualisation of how the neighbourhood would change in response to a proposed plan; understanding how a plan could benefit the community; Communicate and improve understanding health of planning and design decisions that positively impact health outcomes.

conclusionsThe use of health-impact PSS have the potential to be transformative for the translation and application of health evidence into planning policy and practice, providing those responsible for the policy and practice of designing and creating our communities with access to quantifiable, evidence-based information about how their decisions might impact community health.

Indexed as

City PlanningPublic HealthCitiesEnvironment DesignHumansTransportationUrban HealthBuilt environmentGISHealthHealth impactLand use planningParticipatory planningPlanning support systemsScenario planning

Identifiers

PMID34407828
PMCPMC8371821

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.