ArticleCities (London, England)2025
Evaluating the performance of spatial indicators of destination accessibility for physical activity research: a comparative international analysis.
Article in Cities (London, England), 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neighbourhoods with good access to various destinations facilitate engagement in physical activity. Because spatial indicators of destination accessibility can be operationalised in numerous ways, it is important to evaluate their ability to explain physical activity in various geographical and cultural contexts. We evaluated established as well as novel spatial indicators of destination accessibility using data from 12 cities/regions participating in an international study on adolescents' physical activity. Twelve spatial indicators of destination accessibility were developed using land use data. Five indicators represented measures of destination intensity (density), two were indicators of destination heterogeneity [land use mix (LUM) indices], and the remaining five were novel measures of combined destination intensity and heterogeneity. To evaluate these spatial indicators, we examined their performance as correlates of parent-perceived destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity, and the extent to which the findings were generalisable across cities/regions. Substantial differences in ability to explain physical activity and comparability across geographical locations were observed across the indicators. The best performing indicator, defined as being a consistent correlate of parental perceptions of destination accessibility and adolescents' physical activity in the expected direction and across cities/regions, was a novel hybrid intensity + heterogeneity indicator: gross density of non-residential destinations weighted by a novel parcel-count-based LUM index. Indicators based on ratios of non-residential land/parcels to residential land/dwelling units performed poorly on most criteria, while LUM indices performed well in relation to transport-related physical activity. We provide recommendations regarding the usage of spatial destination accessibility indicators in physical activity research.
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.