Neighbourhood Built Environment Influences on Physical Activity among Adults: A Systematized Review of Qualitative Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative studies can provide important information about how and why the built environment impacts physical activity decision-making—information that is important for informing local urban policies. We undertook a systematized literature review to synthesize findings from qualitative studies exploring how the built environment influences physical activity in adults. Our review included 36 peer-reviewed qualitative studies published from 1998 onwards. Our findings complemented existing quantitative evidence and provided additional insight into how functional, aesthetic, destination, and safety built characteristics influence physical activity decision-making. Sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) also impacted the BE’s influence on physical activity. Our review findings reinforce the need for synergy between transportation planning, urban design, landscape architecture, road engineering, parks and recreation, bylaw enforcement, and public health to be involved in creating neighbourhood environments that support physical activity. Our findings support a need for local neighbourhood citizens and associations with representation from individuals and groups with different sociodemographic backgrounds to have input into neighbourhood environment planning process.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it