Urban environment interventions linked to the promotion of physical activity: A mixed methods study applied to the urban context of Latin America

Luis F. Gomez, Rodrigo Sarmiento, Maria Fernanda Ordoñez, Carlos Felipe Pardo, Thiago Hérick de Sá, Christina H. Mallarino, J. Jaime Miranda, Janeth Mosquera, Diana C. Parra, Rodrigo Reis, D. Alex Quistberg
2015 Social Science and Medicine  
This study summarizes the evidence from quantitative systematic reviews that assessed the association between urban environment attributes and physical activity. It also documents sociopolitical barriers and facilitators involved in urban interventions linked with active living in the ten most populated urban settings of Latin America. The synthesis of evidence indicates that several attributes of urban environments are associated with physical activity, including land-use mix and cycling
more » ... tructure. The documentary analysis indicated that despite the benefits and opportunities provided by the programs and existing infrastructure in the examined cities, an overall concern is the rising inequality in the coverage and distribution of the initiatives in the region. If these programs and initiatives are to achieve a real population level effect that helps to This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Systematic reviews and meta-analysis excluded of the umbrella reviewed due to fatal flaws based on SURE. Ordered by publication date. Review or meta-analysis Reasons for exclusion Ferdinand AO et al 2012 No quality assessment of the included studies. Heterogeneity makes difficult the approach to the bias. There was language bias, no contact with authors/expert. Not clear if the screening was made by 2 authors.. Van Cauwenberg J et al 2011. No assessment for bias in the results analysis, Not clear if there was an independent review of the articles by different authors in the screening or full text phases. Language bias, no excluded studies list provided. No/poor examination of the specific factors that might explain differences in the results of the included studies Wong BY et al 2011. No assessment of risk of bias, not clear how many authors participate in the screening of full text articles, no list of excluded studies provided, language bias, no contact with authors/experts. No explicit selection criteria. No type of studies listed. There was not a sensible method used to explore the extent to which key factors explaines heterogeneity Faulkner G et al, 2008. No clear assessment for bias in the results analysis. Language bias, no authors/experts contact, no excluded studies list provided. No type of study included specified. Not clear if there was an independent review by different authors Wendel-Vos W et al 2007. No assessment of the risk of bias. Language bias, no contact with authors/experts, no reference lists in included articles checked. No list of excluded studies provided. Not reasonably up-to-date. There was not a sensible method used to explore the extent to which key factors explains heterogeneity Duncan MJ et al, 2005. No assessment of risk of bias. Vague explanation of the inclusion criteria: search criteria not explicit, type of population, age and type of study not described. Screening of full text by 1 reviewer, no list of excluded studies provided. No explicit selection criteria. There was not a sensible method used to explore the extent to which key factors explains heterogeneity Gomez et al.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.042 pmid:25748111 pmcid:PMC4594859 fatcat:4vgwsxia45hendxjhxzruddsay