Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35421959›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

What do adults want in parks? A qualitative study using walk-along interviews.

Jenny Veitch, Nicole Biggs, Benedicte Deforche, Anna Timperio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jenny VeitchSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. jenny.veitch@deakin.edu.au.
Nicole BiggsSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Benedicte DeforcheDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Anna TimperioSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Deakin University · AUGhent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParks provide opportunities for physical activity and social interaction and are critical for enhancing public health. It is therefore important to better understand the needs and preferences of park features among adults to help park designers to create parks that optimise use. This qualitative study provided an in-depth examination of factors and characteristics that influence visitation, park-based physical activity, and social interaction among adults (19-64 years). We also explored perceptions of parks and park use and impacts of COVID on park usage and needs.

methodsParticipants (n = 27, 40.4 years [+ 11.9], 70% female) were interviewed from 2017 to 2020 while walking through one of eight diverse parks located in varying socioeconomic areas of metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Participants were prompted to discuss their experiences, opinions and preferences regarding park features. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 12 software.

resultsPark features and characteristics highly valued for visitation related to aesthetics and atmosphere, including trees, gardens, spaciousness, and water features. Features most valued for physical activity included walking and bike tracks, basketball rings, nice aesthetics, and sports walls. Features most valued for social interaction included seating and tables, and picnic/barbecue areas.

conclusionsThis study highlights features and characteristics that may be important to prioritise, to encourage active and social park visits among adults. This evidence will help policy and decision makers, urban planners, landscape architects, and local, state, and national government organisations to create parks that support adults to lead healthy and active lives. Future research should examine the relative importance of the features identified in this study to inform future park design/redesign.

Indexed as

Environment DesignWalkingAdultFemaleHumansMaleParks, RecreationalRecreationResidence CharacteristicsAdultsDesignPark featuresPhysical activitySocial interaction

Identifiers

PMID35421959
PMCPMC9008398
OpenAlexW4223942676

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.