Table 2 An illustrative example of how differences between configurations of environmental factors may be assessed.
Evidence to be generalised. | Evidence for increased levels of PA following the introduction of an additional light rail stop from Brown & Werner [51] | |
|---|---|---|
EFs that are known to be associated with PA and/or may influence the processes of the intervention. | Street Connectivity | Population Density |
Information about 'place A' (neighbourhood in Salt Lake City) available from published report. | "The residential areas had gridded street patterns" (High street connectivity) | None Available |
Other information about this EF in 'place A' | None required | Location of place A could be identified by contacting the authors and population density identified by searching census data. Population density = 6.67 persons per hectare. |
Information about 'place B' (A neighbourhood in London) | Street connectivity could be assessed using methods described by Ewing [32] found place B to have med/low connectivity. | Population density identified by searching census data. Population density = 47.57 persons per hectare |
Information needed to make judgements about the extent to which differences in this EF between places A and B may influence the generalisablity of this evidence | Research [32] has shown that higher levels of street connectivity are associated with higher levels of PA. Furthermore, low levels of street connectivity reduce access to destinations, such as the rail stop that is the focus of the intervention. | Research [52] has shown that modest differences in population density (smaller than that we have identified between places A and B) are associated with differences in PA levels. |
On a scale of '1' (very likely to negatively influence PA or intervention processes) to '5' (very unlikely) rate the extent to which differences between this EF in place A and place B are likely to influence PA levels or the processes of the intervention (if applicable). Indicate what type of influence this is likely to be (e.g. positively/negatively influence PA levels). | The lower levels of street connectivity in place B are likely to negatively influence PA and specifically to influence accessibility to a rail stop. For these reasons, this EF is rated '2' - likely to influence PA and/or the intervention processes and therefore likely to be a barrier to generalising this evidence to place B | The higher population density in place B is likely to positively influence PA. For this reason, this EF is rated '5' - very unlikely to negatively influence PA levels and therefore unlikely to be a barrier to generalising this evidence to place B. |