ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Comprehensive evaluation of global health cities development levels.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can cross-sector governance improve urban health resource supply? Evidence from China's Healthy City pilot policy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The association between perceived neighborhood environment and health-related quality of life among residents living in mega-communities in Guiyang, Southwestern China.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Six Sigma research in healthcare is associated with global health, research and development indicators: A scientometrics study based on countries by income groups.Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- Impact of national health city campaign on public health in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: How to scientifically assess the health status of cities and effectively assist in formulating policies and planning for health city development remains a profound challenge in building a global "health community." Methods: This study employs the Building Research Establishment's International Healthy Cities Index (BRE HCI), encompassing ten environmental categories and fifty-eight indicators, to guide and support the scientific development of healthy cities. The entropy weight-TOPSIS method and the rank sum ratio (RSR) method were applied to comprehensively rank and categorize the health development levels of fifteen global cities. Furthermore, through cluster analysis, this research identifies universal and unique indicators that influence the development of healthy cities. Results: The results indicate that: (1) Within the scope of 58 evaluation indicators, the precedence in weight allocation is accorded to the kilometres of bicycle paths and lanes per 100,000 population (0.068), succeeded by m2 of public indoor recreation space Discussion: The study proposes four strategic recommendations based on these findings: establishing a comprehensive policy assurance system, refining urban spatial planning, expanding avenues for multi-party participation, and augmenting distinctive health indicators. These measures aim to narrow the developmental disparities between cities and contribute to healthy global cities' balanced and sustainable growth. However, due to existing limitations in sample selection, research methodology application, and the control of potential confounding variables, further in-depth studies are required 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.