Associations between neighbourhood walkability and daily steps in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher street connectivity, land use mix and residential density (collectively referred to as neighbourhood walkability) have been linked to higher levels of walking. The objective of our study was to summarize the current body of knowledge on the association between neighbourhood walkability and biosensor-assessed daily steps in adults. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Embase (Ovid) for articles published prior to May 2014 on the association between walkability (based on Geographic Information Systems-derived street connectivity, land use mix, and/or residential density) and daily steps (pedometer or accelerometer-assessed) in adults. The mean differences in daily steps between adults living in high versus low walkable neighbourhoods were pooled across studies using a Bayesian hierarchical model. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 8,744 unique abstracts. Thirty of these underwent full article review of which six met the inclusion criteria. Four of these studies were conducted in Europe and two were conducted in Asia. A meta-analysis of four of these six studies indicates that participants living in high compared to low walkable neighbourhoods accumulate 766 more steps per day (95 % credible interval 250, 1271). This accounts for approximately 8 % of recommended daily steps. CONCLUSIONS: The results of European and Asian studies support the hypothesis that higher neighbourhood walkability is associated with higher levels of biosensor-assessed walking in adults. More studies on this association are needed in North America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".