ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Comparative Review of Environmental Audit Tools for Public Open Spaces from the Perspective of Children's Activity.
Review 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a park and green space service classification to support park prescribing in Korea.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing physical-exercise suitability in an urban canal corridor: evidence from the Cangzhou reach of China's Grand Canal.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public open spaces are important venues for children's participation in outdoor activities and social life. This study performs a comparative and qualitative review of the tools that can be used to audit the environments of children-focused public open spaces. The analysis reviews 25 studies involving 11 tools for comparison. The results reveal that (1) the tools were developed in different fields; (2) the tools use two data resources, field investigation and geographic databases; (3) the tool dimensions are diverse, as are the number of items covered, and are generally related to four categories: surrounding environment and accessibility, activity and perceived safety, children's sports and play opportunities, and aesthetic and comfort of the environment; (4) the reliability of most tools has been verified, with some validity still to be confirmed; (5) there are differences in tool users, settings, and aims. Among the tools, the CPAT and the EAPRS are the most comprehensive. Comparative analysis of the tools provides a reference for studies on children-focused public open spaces and for the development and improvement of corresponding tools in the future.
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.