ArticlePloS one2022
Satisfaction with the walking-related environment during COVID-19 in South Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the satisfaction level differences between urban and rural areas with regard to their walking environment during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea. This online cross-sectional research was conducted using a mobile health application. Overall, 1,032 local residents who participated in the mobile healthcare program of a public health center were classified as being from either urban (n = 481, 46.6%) or rural areas (n = 551, 53.4%) for the purpose of this study. The Walkability Checklist, which includes sociodemographic information, was employed using a Chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression to investigate whether or not the participants were satisfied with the environmental factors associated with walking. It was found that both urban and rural areas were more likely to be unsatisfied with walking comfort (adjusted OR: 24.472, 95% CI: 14.937-40.096). Regarding the walking comfort aspects of the walking environment, urban residents chose poor landscape ("needed more grass, flowers, or trees"; aOR: 13.561, 95% CI: 3.619-50.823) as their primary dissatisfaction, and rural residents chose messy streets ("dirty, lots of litter or trash"; aOR: 29.045, 95% CI: 6.202-136.015). Compared with urban residents, rural residents were more discontented with the walking environment. Thus, to promote walking activities at the community level, it is necessary to focus on walking comfort, and implement efforts related to environmental beautification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.