Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39984935›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

How an urban regeneration programme impact people's health and wellbeing: an evaluation from citizen's perception using concept mapping.

M Urtaran-Laresgoiti, A M Novoa, S Martin, K Pérez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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

4 authors.

M Urtaran-LaresgoitiAgència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB), Barcelona, Spain.
A M NovoaAgència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB), Barcelona, Spain. anovoa@aspb.cat.
S MartinAgència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB), Barcelona, Spain.
K PérezAgència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUrban regeneration programmes have an impact on health of residents in the areas where they are implemented. However, it is still unclear which changes inside these programmes drive the impact on health and social determinants of health. In this study, we uncover the main changes inside the PdB driving the impact on health and well-being from the residents' perceptions in a neighbourhood of Barcelona.

methodsWe used a mixed methodology, employing concept mapping (CM) method. Our study was performed in the Barcelona neighbourhood of La Verneda i La Pau. To collect and analyse residents' perceptions of changes, we used a three-stage group sessions. We split the population into groups by age and sex and analysed the differences between the groups.

resultsIn total, 45 people participated and were divided into five age-sex groups. Most changes inside the PdB were perceived as positive for health by all the groups. These included community activities for healthy leisure at local centres, as well as changes to public space. However, some changes related to noise from the implementation of works were perceived as negative for health. Differences between age-sex groups were especially related to mobility and the different uses of public space.

conclusionsThe results are consistent with previous quantitative health evaluations and provide deeper insight into the changes inside urban regeneration programmes that drive the impact on health. Finally, it provides guidance for designing new programmes considering age and gender.

Indexed as

Health StatusUrban RenewalAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationSpainYoung AdultCitizen participationConcept mappingHealth policyUrban healthUrban regeneration

Identifiers

PMID39984935
PMCPMC11843812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.