Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the selected articles/studies (N = 42)

From: The neighbourhood physical environment and active travel in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

  1. aMultiple options allowed in single articles
  2. bOne article had both objective and perceived measures of access to/availability of services and destinations. Hence, the total number of articles is 1 unit smaller than the sum of articles with objectively assessed and perceived measures
  3. cSome articles had more than one measure of walking. Hence, the total number of articles is smaller than the sum of articles with specific measures of walking