Skip to main content

Table 4 Social and physical environmental correlates of CIM License

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

Strenght of evidence

+

0

–

Associationa

n/N (%)b

Social environment

 Perceived neighborhood environment (parents)

  Fear of strangers

[24]c

[24]c

  

+

1/1 (100)

  Fear of crime

[61]c; [49]d (2)

[61]c

[49]d (2)

 

?

1/3 (33)

  Neighborhood friendliness

[24, 61]; [49]c

[24, 61]

[49]c

 

+

2/3 (66)

  Neighborhood safety

[24, 61]; [49]c

[24, 61]

 

[49]c

+

3/3 (100)

  Perception of traffic

[24, 49]; [61]c

[61]c

[24, 49]

 

?

1/3 (33)

  Neighborhood maintenance

[49]d(4)

 

[49]d(4)

 

0

0/4 (0)

 Social cultural environment

  Social norms (no support of IM)

[49]

  

[49]

–

1/1 (100)

  Parents’ attitudes toward active travel modes

[24]

[24]

  

+

1/1 (100)

  Child-centered social control

[61]

 

[61]

 

0

0/1 (0)

Physical environment

 Home environment

  Car ownership

[61]

  

[61]

–

1/1 (100)

 Recreational environment

  Park availability

[49]d (2)

 

[49]d (2)

 

0

0/2 (0)

  Park attractiveness

[49]

[49]

  

+

1/1 (100)

  Playgrounds

[49]d (2)

 

[49]d (2)

 

0

0/2 (0)

  School environment

  School density

[49]d (2)

 

[49]d (2)

 

0

0/2 (0)

 Neighborhood design

  Housing unit density

[61]

 

[61]

 

0

0/1 (0)

  Degree of Urbanization

[23, 53, 58, 64]

 

[53]

[23, 58, 64]

–

3/4 (75)

  Neighborhood Walkability

[24]d(6)

 

[24]d(6)

 

0

0/6 (0)

 Transport environment

  Traffic (objective)

[49]

 

[49]

 

0

0/1 (0)

  1. CIM children’s independent mobility
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. cItems are reversed
  5. 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