Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32295650›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2020

Increasing translation of research evidence for optimal park design: a qualitative study with stakeholders.

Jenny Veitch, Emily Denniss, Kylie Ball, Harriet Koorts, Benedicte Deforche, Anna Timperio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exploring Children's Views on Important Park Features: A Qualitative Study Using Walk-Along Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jenny VeitchInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jenny.veitch@deakin.edu.au.
Emily DennissInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Kylie BallInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Harriet KoortsInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Benedicte DeforcheDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Anna TimperioInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decision-making regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice.

methodsOne-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12.

resultsResearch evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies.

conclusionsThis research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policy-relevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.

Indexed as

Parks, RecreationalAustraliaCooperative BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingEnvironment DesignEvidence-Based Facility DesignFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchInterviewsPark designPolicyPracticeStakeholdersTranslation

Identifiers

PMID32295650
PMCPMC7160899

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.