ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2023
Using automated active infrared counters to estimate footfall on urban park footpaths: behavioural stability and validity testing.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Video Cameras to Assess Physical Activity and Other Well-Being Behaviors in Urban Environments: Feasibility, Reliability, and Participant Reactivity Studies.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing infrared counters is a promising unobtrusive method of assessing footfall in urban parks. However, infrared counters are susceptible to reliability and validity issues, and there is limited guidance for their use. The aims of this study were to (1) determine how many weeks of automated active infrared count data would provide behaviourally stable estimates of urban park footfall for each meteorological season, and (2) determine the validity of automated active infrared count estimates of footfall in comparison to direct manual observation counts.
methodsThree automated active infrared counters collected daily footfall counts for 365 days on three footpaths in an urban park within Northampton, England, between May 2021 - May 2022. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to compare the behavioural stability of abbreviated data collection schedules with total median footfall within each meteorological season (Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter). Public holidays, events, and extreme outliers were removed. Ten one-hour manual observations were conducted at the site of an infrared counter to determine the validity of the infrared counter.
resultsAt least four-weeks (28 days) of infrared counts are required to provide 'good' to 'excellent' (Intraclass correlation > 0.75, > 0.9, respectively) estimates of median daily footfall per meteorological season in an urban park. Infrared counters had, on average, -4.65 counts per hour (95% LoA -12.4, 3.14; Mean absolute percentage error 13.7%) lower counts compared to manual observation counts during one-hour observation periods (23.2 ± 15.6, 27.9 ± 18.9 counts per hour, respectively). Infrared counts explained 98% of the variance in manual observation counts. The number of groups during an observation period explained 78% of the variance in the difference between infrared and manual counts.
conclusionsAbbreviated data collection schedules can still obtain estimates of urban park footfall. Automated active infrared counts are strongly associated with manual counts; however, they tend to underestimate footfall, often due to people in groups. Methodological and practical recommendations are provided.
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.