ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Empowering Rural Communities to Measure Walkability: Co-Development of a Digital Tool.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLocal neighbourhood environments are important for shaping walkability, but few instruments exist to assess walkability in rural areas. Furthermore, there are no existing tools that have been designed with and for communities to collect local data on walkability, which has the potential to empower communities with ownership and knowledge of the resulting information.
objectiveThis paper aimed to describe the development and evaluation of a digital tool designed to measure walkability in rural areas.
methodsThe Communities for Walkability (C4W) digital tool was co-developed by researchers and community members. Sixty-one community members in 10 small rural Tasmanian towns conducted 80 street segment audits and/or participated in workshops; 16 participants engaged in semi-structured interviews. Geospatial assessments of walkability were completed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Qualitative data were content/thematically analysed and quantitative data analysed descriptively. Exploratory analysis was performed to assess correlations between geospatially assessed walkability and a range of audit scores.
resultsIt was feasible for citizen scientists to collect data using the largely acceptable digital tool, with some areas for improvement identified, particularly the conflict between the sequential nature of tool items and the non-sequential nature of attributes encountered during data collection, the inability to review/save findings, and technical difficulties uploading photographs. Exploratory analysis revealed some correlations between geospatially assessed walkability and safety, commercial land use, and perceived overall walkability; however, the small sample size and exploratory nature of analyses suggest cautious interpretation.
conclusionsAlthough feasible and acceptable for rural communities to collect walkability data using a citizen science approach, future digital walkability tools should allow greater flexibility for real-time data collection, provide streamlined systems for uploading photographs, and include review and save features. The inclusion of citizen perspectives in the design and collection of local data has the potential to be a powerful mechanism to support communities and stakeholders to engage in collective efforts and create environments that support walkability. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in this study in four key ways: co-development of the digital walkability tool, data collection using the digital walkability tool, sense-making and interpretation of findings from the digital walkability tool, and through interviews providing feedback on the tool.
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.