4.1 Review

Effectiveness of Outdoor Exercise Parks on Health Outcomes in Older Adults-A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGING AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 695-707

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/japa.2020-0031

Keywords

neighborhood park; outdoor exercise machines; outdoor exercise park equipment; public health

Funding

  1. Singapore Institute of Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examined the impact of outdoor exercise equipment on physical activity levels and quality of life in older adults in the community. The study found varied results in terms of study quality and effectiveness, and was inconclusive on whether exercise parks are effective in improving physical activity levels. Older adults value health and social benefits from using exercise parks, but caution is advised due to small sample sizes and limited studies.
The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of outdoor exercise park equipment on physical activity levels, physical function, psychosocial outcomes, and quality of life of older adults living in the community and to evaluate the evidence of older adults' use of outdoor exercise park equipment. A search strategy was conducted from seven databases. Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The study quality results were varied. Meta-analyses were undertaken for two physical performance tests: 30-s chair stand test and single-leg stance. The meta-analysis results were not statistically significant. It was not possible to conclude whether exercise parks were effective at improving levels of physical activity. The review shows that older adults value the benefits of health and social interaction from the use of exercise parks. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample sizes and the limited number of studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available