Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36674028›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

The 5-Minute Campus.

Sascha Naomi Jansz, Mark Mobach, Terry van Dijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. 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

3 authors.

Sascha Naomi JanszDepartment of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mark MobachResearch Group Facility Management, Research Centre for Built Environment-NoorderRuimte, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, 9747 AS Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1490-4540
Terry van DijkDepartment of Spatial Planning and Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As campuses wish to stimulate interactions among different campus users, we aim to identify why some locations are successful in fostering unplanned meetings while others are not. This can help campus managers, directors, and other practitioners to optimize their campus to facilitate unplanned meetings between academic staff and companies. Findings of a previous survey were discussed in five focus groups, which were transcribed and thematically coded. Three separate theme groups were identified: function (food, drinks, events, work, facilities), space (distance, experience, accessibility, characteristics), and organization (coherence, culture, organization). Time was an overarching constraint, influencing all other themes. There were three natural moments for unplanned meetings: during short breaks, lunch breaks, and events. The outcomes suggest a 5-minute campus as the environment of interaction; a campus where natural moments, locations, and travel time for unplanned meetings are designed and aligned: (1) under 5 min walking for short workplace breaks, (2) approximately 5 min travel time for lunch breaks, and (3) over 5 min travel time for events, depending on the event length and anticipated knowledge gain.

Indexed as

WalkingFoodHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversities5-minute campuscampus designfacilitiesinteractionsproximityunplanned meetings

Identifiers

PMID36674028
PMCPMC9859313

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.