ArticleJournal of transport & health2026
Engaging Community Residents in Large-Scale Neighborhood Audits for Health Research.
Article in Journal of transport & health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated the feasibility of engaging community residents as community scientists to conduct large-scale pedestrian streetscape audits around bus stops for use in observational health research. Methods: Community residents (n=38) were recruited, trained, and certified as community scientists to conduct audits of walkability features along 337 walking routes near 273 bus stops in 10 low-income ZIP codes of Kansas City, MO. Participants completed structured classroom and field training, followed by practice and independent audits using research-based audit tools. They then participated in a reflection session and a community dissemination and advocacy event. Interrater reliability was assessed in a subsample audited by trained researchers. Quotations from the reflection event were used to summarize key reflections by the community scientists. Results: Twenty-five community scientists completed a total of 271 audits (mean=10.8, SD=7.8). Interrater reliability was good to excellent for 93.6% of the items, for all bus stop and crossing subscales and 4 of the 7 segment subscales. Community scientists reported increased awareness of neighborhood conditions, identified infrastructure disparities, and contributed to a community-facing report and a dissemination event with local community members and leaders. Conclusion: Community scientists can be trained to collect reliable, detailed microscale pedestrian environment data at scale, offering a feasible approach for large-scale observational health research. Integrating community engagement into data collection may also enhance the relevance and impact of built environment research by supporting local awareness and advocacy.
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.