Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Social and physical environmental correlates of CIM Destination

From: Social and physical environmental correlates of independent mobility in children: a systematic review taking sex/gender differences into account

Correlates Study source Association with CIM Strength of evidence
+ 0 Associationa n/N (%)b
Social environment
 Perceived neighborhood environment (children)
  Fear of strangers [32, 33]   [33] F [33] M; [32] 2/3 (67)
  Neighborhood friendliness [33] [33] M [33] F   ? 1/2 (50)
  Neighborhood safety [32, 33]; [62]c [33] M, F; [32]   [62]c + 4/4 (100)
  Many other children within their area [33, 36] {[33] M, F; [36] M, F}e    + 2/2 (100)
 Perceived neighborhood environment (parents)
  Sense of community [52]   [52] (M, F)   0 0/2 (0)
  Fear of strangers [32, 36]    [32]; [36] M, F 3/3 (100)
  Fear of crime [63]    [63] 1/1 (100)
  Neighborhood friendliness [33, 36, 60] {[33] M, F; [36] M, F}e; [60]    + 3/3 (100)
  Neighborhood safety [52, 63]; [52]c [52] F; [63] [52] M; [52]c M, F   ? 2/5 (40)
  Perception of traffic [36, 52, 62, 63]; [32, 33]d(2); [33, 60, 63]c [33]c M, F; [63]c [33] M, F; [52]M, F; [36] M; [60]c [62, 63]; [32]d(2); [36] F; [33] M, F 10/16 (63)
  Often people out on walks in the neighborhood [33] [33] M, F    + 2/2 (100)
  Informal social control [36] [36] M, F    + 2/2 (100)
 Social cultural environment
  Mobility license [53,54,55, 64] [53] M, F; [54] M, F; [55, 64]    + 6/6 (100)
  Parental rules (towards IM) walking [52]   [52] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  Parental rules (towards IM) play outside [52] [52] M [52] F   ? 1/2 (50)
  Parent encourage for walking/cycling [52]   [52] M [52] F ? 1/2 (50)
  Friend encourage for walking/cycling [52]   [52] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  Confidence in children’s abilities [33, 60] [33] M, F; [60]    + 3/3 (100)
  Child’s personal safety [33, 60] [33] M, F; [60]    + 3/3 (100)
  Fearful of child engaging in antisocial behavior [33]   [33] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  Parental physical activity [63]   [63]   0 0/1 (0)
  Parent activity with child [63]   [63]   0 0/1 (0)
  Many children we know walk or cycle to school [60]   [60]   0 0/1 (0)
  Having friends [33] [33] M, F    + 2/2 (100)
Physical environment
 Home environment
  Car ownership [32, 50, 52, 62]   [32]; [52] F [50, 62]; [52] M 3/5 (60)
  Dog ownership [27] [27]    + 1/1 (100)
  Bike ownership [33] [33] F [33] M   ? 1/2 (50)
  Size of backyard [33]   [33] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
School environment
  Distance [32, 50, 51, 62]    [32, 50, 51, 62] 4/4 (100)
  School-specific walkability [33, 36, 52, 62] {[33] F; [36] F}e; [62] {[33] M; [36] M}e; [52] M, F   ? 2/5 (40)
  School characteristics [52]   [52] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  School density [50] [50]    + 1/1 (100)
 Recreational environment
  Parks [33, 60] [33] M [33] F; [60]   ? 1/3 (33)
  Quality and quantity of public open spaces [55]   [55]   0 0/1 (0)
  Remote places [51] [51]    + 1/1 (100)
  Neighborhood design
  Street connectivity [32, 50]; [52]d (3)   [52] M, F; [52] (M); [52] M, F [32, 50]; [52] F ? 3/8 (38)
  Neighborhood walkability [52]   [52] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  Land use mix [32, 50, 52]   [52] M; [50] [32]; [52] F ? 2/4 (50)
  Population density [50]    [50] 1/1 (100)
  Degree of urbanization (ref: urban) [23, 50, 53, 54, 58, 62, 64] [54] [53] [23, 50, 58, 62, 64] 5/7 (71)
  Urban structure (new) [32] [32]    + 1/1 (100)
  Street-trees [32]   [32]   0 0/1 (0)
  Densely built up residential areas [51] [51]    + 1/1 (100)
  Mainly single-family housing [51] [51]    + 1/1 (100)
  Big building and public transport hubs [51]    [51] 1/1 (100)
 Transport environment
  Walking facilities [52]; [60]; [32]c [60] [52] M, F [32]c ? 2/4 (50)
  Biking facilities [60]   [60]   0 0/1 (0)
  Streetlight density [52]   [52] M, F   0 0/2 (0)
  Traffic (objective) [50, 51]; [32]d (2)   [32, 51] [32, 50] ? 2/4 (50)
  1. Effects which are specific to different sex/gender groups are noted separately: M (male); F (female)
  2. CIM children’s independent mobility
  3. aNo evidence: no studies were identified; no association (0): 0–33% of studies showed a significant association; inconsistent association (?): 34–59% of studies reported significant associations; positive (+) or negative (−) association: 60–100% of studies demonstrated significant associations; limited evidence for a positive or negative association (small +, −): <4 studies available for the associations of interest; strong evidence (++) or (−−) association: 60–100% of high quality studies showed a significant association
  4. bn = number of studies/measures reporting associations in the expected direction; N = number of identified studies/measures on the association of interest; (%) = percentage of studies reporting associations in the expected direction
  5. cItems are reversed
  6. d(x)The same study may occur twice or more often within a topic if different measures are used and show different associations; x = number of measures
  7. e{…} = study results of two studies with the same population were considered as one study