ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2024
Who Benefits? A Mixed Methods Study Assessing Community Use of a Major Metropolitan Park During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2024. 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.
- Perceptions of Climate Change, Health Impacts, and Climate Resilience, among Urban Residents Living with Asthma: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring Physical Activity Among Mexican American Immigrants in New York City Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Two-Wave Panel, Mixed-Method Analysis.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
By providing spaces for recreation, physical activity, social gatherings, and time in nature, urban parks offer physical, mental, and social benefits to users. However, many urban residents face barriers to park use. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new potential barriers to urban park access and use, including changes to daily life and employment, closure of park amenities and restrictions to public movement, and risk from the coronavirus itself. The mixed-methods PARCS study measured use and perceptions of a large urban park in St. Louis, Missouri before, during, and after local COVID-19 contingency measures and restrictions. We examine data from 1,157 direct observation assessments of park usership, an online survey of park users (n=561), interviews with key stakeholders (n=27), four focus groups (n=30), and a community-based participatory research sub-study (n=66) to comprehensively characterize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on park use. Park users who felt unsafe from the coronavirus experienced 2.65 higher odds of reducing park use. However, estimated park visits during COVID-19 contingency measures (n=5,023,759) were twice as high as post-contingency (n=2,277,496). Participants reported using the park for physical activity, recreation, time in nature, and socializing during the contingency period. Black, Hispanic/Latino, and young people were less likely to visit the park than others, suggesting an additional, disproportionate impact of the pandemic on minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. This study highlights the role of public spaces like parks as resources for health and sites where urban health inequities can be alleviated in times of public crisis.
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.