Characteristic | Number of articles | % |
---|---|---|
Geographical region | ||
 Africa | 1 | 2.4 |
 Asia | 6 | 14.3 |
 Europe | 9 | 21.4 |
 North America | 18 | 42.9 |
 Oceania | 5 | 11.9 |
 South America | 3 | 7.1 |
Geographical setting | ||
 Urban | 34 | 81.0 |
 Urban, suburban and/or rural | 5 | 11.9 |
 Not reported | 3 | 7.1 |
Study designa | ||
 Cross-sectional | 42 | 100.0 |
 Longitudinal | 0 | 0.0 |
 Quasi-experimental | 0 | 0.0 |
Stratification by characteristic of study area | ||
 Area-level socio-economic status | 21 | 50.0 |
 Walkability aspects | 22 | 52.4 |
 Urbanisation | 4 | 9.5 |
 Demographics | 3 | 7.1 |
 None | 12 | 28.6 |
Sample size | ||
  ≤ 100 | 1 | 2.4 |
 101-300 | 7 | 16.7 |
 301-500 | 15 | 35.7 |
 501-1000 | 9 | 21.4 |
 1001 – 2500 | 6 | 14.3 |
  > 2500 | 4 | 9.5 |
Neighbourhood definitiona | ||
 Objective | ||
  Administrative/census area | 15 | 35.7 |
 Buffer (crow-fly or road-network) | ||
  400-500 m | 9 | 21.4 |
   ≥ 1000 m | 2 | 4.8 |
  variable/not fixed | 2 | 4.8 |
 Perceived | ||
  10-20 min walk from home | 13 | 31.0 |
  Other participant delimitation | 7 | 16.7 |
  Unknown | 1 | 2.4 |
Studies with multiple publications | ||
 SNQLS | 6 | 14.3 |
 Active Living Study | 4 | 9.5 |
 BEPAS Seniors | 3 | 7.1 |
 EpiFloripa Elderly | 3 | 7.1 |
 HK Elderly 1 | 3 | 7.1 |
 Montreal’s Household Travel Survey | 2 | 4.8 |
 Single publication from studies with name | 12 | 28.6 |
 Single publication from studies with no name | 9 | 21.4 |
Environmental attributes measureda | ||
 Residential density/urbanisation | 15 | 35.7 |
  Objectively assessed | 4 | 9.5 |
  Perceived | 11 | 26.2 |
 Walkability | 11 | 26.2 |
  Objectively assessed | 11 | 26.2 |
  Perceived | 0 | 0.0 |
 Street connectivity | 15 | 35.7 |
  Objectively assessed | 3 | 7.1 |
  Perceived | 12 | 28.6 |
 Access to/availability of services and destinationsb | 33 | 78.6 |
  Objectively assessed | 15 | 35.7 |
  Perceived | 19 | 45.2 |
 Pedestrian & cycling infrastructure | 25 | 59.5 |
  Objectively assessed | 6 | 14.3 |
  Perceived | 19 | 45.2 |
 Aesthetics and cleanliness/order | 19 | 45.2 |
  Objectively assessed | 3 | 7.1 |
  Perceived | 16 | 38.1 |
 Safety and traffic | 24 | 57.1 |
  Objectively assessed | 5 | 11.9 |
  Perceived | 19 | 45.2 |
Active travel measuresa (all self-reported) | ||
 Total walking for transportc | 35 | 83.3 |
  Continuous – frequency | 5 | 11.9 |
  Continuous – amount | 11 | 26.2 |
  Categorical – any, yes/no | 10 | 23.8 |
  Categorical – 60+ min/week, yes/no | 5 | 11.9 |
  Categorical – 150+ min/week, yes/no | 1 | 2.4 |
  Categorical – daily, yes/no | 1 | 2.4 |
  Categorical – 3 categories/levels | 3 | 7.1 |
 Within-neighbourhood walking for transportc | 4 | 9.5 |
  Continuous – frequency | 2 | 4.8 |
  Continuous – amount | 4 | 9.5 |
 Total cycling for transport | 2 | 4.8 |
  Continuous – amount | 1 | 2.4 |
  Categorical – daily, yes/no | 1 | 2.4 |
 Active travel (walking + cycling) | 5 | 11.9 |
  Continuous – frequency | 1 | 2.4 |
  Continuous – amount | 3 | 7.1 |
  Categorical – 3 categories/levels | 1 | 2.4 |
Moderators of environment-active travel associationsa | ||
 Individual | ||
  Socio-demographics | 6 | 14.3 |
  Psychosocial factors | 1 | 2.4 |
  Vehicle ownership or driving status | 1 | 2.4 |
  Health status/functionality | 3 | 7.1 |
 Environmental | ||
  Area-level income | 4 | 9.5 |
  Residential density/urbanisation | 2 | 4.8 |
  Pedestrian infrastructure | 1 | 2.4 |
  Safety and traffic | 2 | 4.8 |
  None | 25 | 59.5 |