ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Assessing Park Quality with a Wearable Video Device and an Unmanned Aerial System.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Capturing Children's Technology Use Using Wearable Camera and Fixed Room Video: Experimental Laboratory Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Parks are ideal places for promoting physical activity, which is vital for achieving and sustaining good health. Thus, it is important to develop and provide the best methods for assessing aspects of parks that could influence physical activity. This study examined the use of high-tech video capture for describing park quality. Videos were obtained with a wearable video device (WVD) and an unmanned aerial system (UAS) at 28 and 17 parks, respectively. In-person audits of park attributes were performed using the Physical Activity Readiness Assessment (PARA) instrument while video was simultaneously captured. The PARA provides quality ratings of park attributes that range from poor to good. Kappa statistics were calculated to compare in-person PARA outcomes with PARA outcomes obtained by reviewing the WVD and UAS videos. Substantial and almost-perfect agreements were found between WVD and in-person PARAs on the quality of features and amenities and the severity of incivilities. Agreements between UAS and in-person PARAs on feature and amenity quality and incivility severity were unacceptable (mostly fair and moderate). In conclusion, being able to reliably assess park quality using video provides advantages over in-person assessments (e.g., retrospective analysis). In addition, it sets up the possibility of utilizing computer vision to automate the video analysis process.
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.