Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204773›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Aging-friendly cities: Investigating the effects of street usage on the psychological satisfaction of older adults in megacities.

Jian Li, Xing Gao, Yue Qiu, Yantao Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jian LiSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Xing GaoSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China.
Yue QiuSchool of English Language, Literature and Culture, Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, China.
Yantao LingSchool of Economics and Finance, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The psychological satisfaction of older adults is an important evaluation standard for the construction of elder-friendly cities. Meanwhile, as important space carriers carrying the travel activities and social participation of older adults, streets are also of great significance to improve psychological wellbeing. However, few studies pay attention to the street usage of aging population, especially in the context of megacities. Moreover, the previous literature rarely distinguishes the types of streets. Thus, employing a mixed approach, we investigate the relationships between street usage and psychological satisfaction for older adults. Based on the survey in Shanghai, we find that a clear role for different usage indicators in the determination of subjective psychological satisfaction of older adults. More specially, the street usage and psychological satisfaction for older adults are strongly correlated, especially for living streets. Psychological satisfaction for older adults in different types of streets is not always positively related to the positive perception of street usage. The psychological satisfaction of different streets depends on different factors. By focusing on the case of a megacity, our study emphasizes the differences between different types of streets, which will be conducive to the proposal of practical planning policies. In addition, employing mixed research methods not only explains how different street usage affects the psychological welfare of older adults on a macro scale, but also emphasizes the inner world of respondents.

Indexed as

megacitiesolder adultspsychological satisfactionstreet typestreet usage

Identifiers

PMID36204773
PMCPMC9531757

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.