PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17169714

Indicators of activity-friendly communities: an evidence-based consensus process.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity, even at modest intensities, is associated with many health benefits. Most Americans, however, do not engage in the recommended levels. As practitioners seek ways to increase population rates of physical activity, interventions and advocacy efforts are being targeted to the community level. Yet, advocates, community leaders, and researchers lack the tools needed to assess local barriers to and opportunities for more active, healthy lifestyles. Investigators used a systematic review process to identify key indicators of activity-friendly communities that can assess and improve opportunities for regular physical activity. METHODS: Investigators conducted a comprehensive literature review of both peer-reviewed literature and fugitive information (e.g., reports and websites) to generate an initial list of indicators for review (n=230). The review included a three-tiered, modified Delphi consensus-development process that incorporated input of international, national, state, and local researchers and practitioners from academic institutions, federal and state government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and funding agencies in public health, transportation, urban planning, parks and recreation, and public policy. RESULTS: Ten promising indicators of activity-friendly communities were identified: land use environment, access to exercise facilities, transportation environment, aesthetics, travel patterns, social environment, land use economics, transportation economics, institutional and organizational policies, and promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative, multidisciplinary approaches are underway to test, refine, and expand this initial list of indicators and to develop measures that communities, community leaders, and policymakers can use to design more activity-friendly community environments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Laura K Brennan Ramirez, Christine M Hoehner, Ross C Brownson, Rebeka Cook, C Tracy Orleans, Marla Hollander, Dianne C Barker, Philip Bors, Reid Ewing, Richard Killingsworth, Karen Petersmarck, Thomas Schmid, William Wilkinson. 2006. Indicators of activity-friendly communities: an evidence-based consensus process.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.026

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗