4.6 Article

Kids in the city study: research design and methodology

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-587

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand [10/497]
  2. National Heart Foundation of New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Physical activity is essential for optimal physical and psychological health but substantial declines in children's activity levels have occurred in New Zealand and internationally. Children's independent mobility (i.e., outdoor play and traveling to destinations unsupervised), an integral component of physical activity in childhood, has also declined radically in recent decades. Safety-conscious parenting practices, car reliance and auto-centric urban design have converged to produce children living increasingly sedentary lives. This research investigates how urban neighborhood environments can support or enable or restrict children's independent mobility, thereby influencing physical activity accumulation and participation in daily life. Methods/Design: The study is located in six Auckland, New Zealand neighborhoods, diverse in terms of urban design attributes, particularly residential density. Participants comprise 160 children aged 9-11 years and their parents/caregivers. Objective measures (global positioning systems, accelerometers, geographical information systems, observational audits) assessed children's independent mobility and physical activity, neighborhood infrastructure, and streetscape attributes. Parent and child neighborhood perceptions and experiences were assessed using qualitative research methods. Discussion: This study is one of the first internationally to examine the association of specific urban design attributes with child independent mobility. Using robust, appropriate, and best practice objective measures, this study provides robust epidemiological information regarding the relationships between the built environment and health outcomes for this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据