Observational studyInternational journal of health geographics2025
A participatory virtual audit of the built environment for age-friendliness.
Observational study in International journal of health geographics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeospatial studies that consider the relationships between the built environment and health typically rely on researcher-led 'objective' measurement of geospatial attributes of the built environment. Some studies can fail to find expected associations between environments and health outcomes where the geospatial measures do not reflect the experiences or perceptions of people themselves. We took a participatory approach to work with older adults with a concern for falling to assess the built environment in order that we could understand how their assessments relate to researcher assessments. We also wanted to assess whether specific demographic characteristics explained differences in assessments of the built environment between participants. Age-friendly environments can contribute to healthy active ageing. Falling and a fear of falling can lead to restricted outdoor activity. Therefore, understanding how the built environment contributes to fear of falling is important for age-friendly environments.
methodsThe study is a cross-sectional retrospective observational study of the built environment. We worked with older adults in workshop settings to undertake community audits of the built environment in Google Street View. They assessed locations where a fall had occurred. Researchers separately audited the same locations. We used descriptive statistics and ordinal regression cumulative link mixed models to estimate the odds that community members would rank a location one level higher than the researchers.
resultsThere are significant differences in researcher and community auditor assessments of locations of attractiveness. Site related and individual attributes explain variation in how difficult locations were rated for walking, and for concern about falling. Only individual attributes explained variation in site attractiveness. Locations with more trip hazards and steeper slopes were rated as being more difficult to walk and were associated with greater concern for falling.
conclusionsAttributes of the built environment influence perceptions of difficulty walking and concern or falling at specific locations. Furthermore, there are some differences in how researchers and community auditors assess the same locations, meaning that geospatial studies which rely only on researcher assessments may be prone to bias. Involving older people in geospatial studies that measure age-friendly environments can make measurement more reflective of their experiences.
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.