Skip to main content

Advertisement

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