Greenspace exposure and children behavior: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We systematically reviewed the existing evidence (until end of November 2021) on the association between long-term exposure to greenspace and behavioral problems in children according to the PRISMA 2020. The review finally reached 29 relevant studies of which, 17 were cross-sectional, 11 were cohort, and one was a case-control. Most of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 14), followed by the USA (n = 8), and mainly (n = 21) from 2015 onwards. The overall quality of the studies in terms of risk of bias was "fair" (mean quality score = 5.4 out of 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirteen studies (45%) had good or very good quality in terms of risk of bias. The strength and difficulty questionnaire was the most common outcome assessment instrument. Exposure to the greenspace in the reviewed studies was characterized based on different indices (availability, accessibility, and quality), mostly at residential address locations. Association of exposure to different types of greenspace were reported for nine different behavioral outcomes including total behavioral difficulties (n = 16), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and severity (n = 15), ADHD diagnosis (n = 10), conduct problems (n = 10), prosocial behavior (n = 10), emotional symptoms (n = 8), peer-relationship problems (n = 8), externalizing disorders (n = 6), and internalizing disorders (n = 5). Most of the reported associations (except for conduct problems) were suggestive of beneficial association of greenspace exposure with children's behaviors; however, the studies were heterogeneous in terms of their exposure indicators, study design, and the outcome definition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".