Table 1 Summary of characteristics and methods of measures to examine the association between children outdoor active behaviour and neighbourhood safety in the included studies
# | Study characteristics | Studies’ measures | Analysis method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Citation (by alphabetical order)/ year of data collection/ Sample Size n: sex/gender (M/F) Age/grade (or mean age) | Country study design | Safety Questionnaire (perceived by) measured (actual) | Active behaviour tool/recall period/ | The outcome measured Active Behaviour/ | Neighbourhood | Examined variables Individual Family Neighbourhood | Spatial/ spatial statistical/ statistical analysis | |
1 | [32]/- n = 473 (250 M/160 F) Aged 9–11 years old | United Kingdom Cross Section | Children questionnaire Self-reported (walking frequency + perception of the local environment + preferred travel method | From children questionnaire/ past 7 days | Walking frequency (high walkers/low walkers) | Local area | Sex/gender, race/ethnicity (White, Minority ethnic group, Asian, Black, Chinese, Mixed, Other, Not specified), Family characteristics (car ownership, number of rooms in the house) | Statistical analysis |
2 | [33], From 2001–2005 longitudinal study/ n = 170 (51% M) Aged 10–11 years | Australia Cross Section (CLAN) from a longitudinal study | Parents questionnaire Indices for (avoidance + defensive behaviour + perceived risk) and active transportation to 15 destination | Accelerometer/ 8 consecutive days non-school hours before and after school weekdays and weekend | *MVPA | Local area | Sex/gender. age | Statistical analysis |
3 | [34], T1 (April–July 2007)/ n = 1121(43%M) T2 (April-July 2008) n = 491 (39%M) Aged 9–10 years | United Kingdome Longitudinal Data from (SPEEDY) project | Parents perception survey (social/physical environment and rules regarding their children physical activity and perception of traffic safety concerns | Derived from children questionnaire on independent mobility | Independent mobility to school | Within 800 m pedestrian network buffer around the home (10 min walk) | Sex/gender Sociodemographic (cars ownership, parents’ education) + Environmental characteristics around the home and (within 100 m buffer of the shortest route to school | Spatial analysis to derive objectively environmental measures/ statistical analysis |
4 | [35]/- n = 492 (Sex/gender not reported)/ Aged 9–11-year-old | United Kingdom cross-section | From children (focussed group discussion) | From children (focussed group discussion)/- | Active Independent Mobility (AIM) | Local area | Sex/gender, age | – |
5 | [28]/ Sep.–Oct. 2009/ 35 children (18 M/17F)/ Aged 10–11 years | Finland cross-section | Parents questionnaire (children and parents mobility patterns + mobility licences, perceived safety) | GPS, mobility travel diary + individual interview/ 7 days | *active route to home | Buffer 500-m from home | Sex/gender IM licence Land use Types (using SLICES) | Spatial analysis |
6 | [36] /April2010 – May2011/ n = 736 (47% M and 52%F) included in the analysis/ Aged 10–12 years, grade 5–6 | Canada Cross-section from [BEAT] project | Parents questionnaire (child outdoor active play + parents’ perception on the neighbourhood) | Accelerometer/ 7 days | *Outdoor playing time MVPA | Neighbourhood | Age, sex/gender, SES of the neighbourhood (neighbourhood income), neighbourhood perception (roads, personal safety, accessibility of facility) | Statistical analysis |
7 | [37]/During April and May of 2010 and 2011 n = 143 (49 M/94F) two groups aged 9–11 and 12–13 years/grade 5—8 | Canada From the (STEAM) project | Parents questionnaire Children questionnaire (child habitual neighbourhood activities + mobility behaviour + environmental perception | GPS/ 7 days | Neighbourhood Activity Space (NAS) | AS 400, 800 m of home, the second set those found within 1,600 m Moore’s model | Sex/gender, age Environmental perception from child and parents + Neighbourhood type (land use) + Parents IM licences | Spatial analysis/ statistical analysis |
8 | [38]/ Between 2011 and 2012/ n = 254 (100 M/133F) aged 8–13 years (mean age of 10.5) and 239 parents | New Zealand Cross-section From (KITC) project | Parents questionnaire (CATI) (Demographics + neighbourhood perception + safety + social cohesion + connection + parental concerns), children IM | Travel Diary/ 7 days | Independent Mobility (IM) | The immediate street around the home | Sex/gender, age, + older sibling Parents demographics (sex ethnicity of (New Zealand European, Maori, Pacific Island, Samoan, Asian, Indian, Others), study or work outside the home, household (dwelling type, cars availability length of residency) + , IM + parents neighbourhood perception of safety + connect and cohesion, | Spatial analysis/ statistical analysis |
9 | [30] /-/ 735 parents of children (364 M/371F)/ aged 7–9 years in 9 schools returned the survey | Iran Cross-Section | Parents questionnaire (mode of transport in the previous week, demographics, access to school service and public transportation, attitude towards waking | Parents reported Perceived Walking Time to school (PWTS) in min | Perceived Walking to school | School to home area | Sex/gender, household characteristics (father/mother driving licence, owned cars, father/mother occupation status) + perceived safety of walking to school + school travel mode, parental attitude, walking time to school | Statistical analysis |
10 | [39]/2014/ n = 194 / aged 9–10 years - | United Kingdom cross-sectional | Parents Survey used NEWS_Y Index to derive perceived environment Children self-reported PA using PAQ-C | Self-reported PA derived from a questionnaire | Body Mass Index (BMI) /Self-reported PA | High and low deprived areas | Sex/gender, home environment (access to media in the bedroom, IM derived from parents’ questionnaires, Area level Deprivation*, perceived safety | Statistical analysis |
11 | [40]/ study between 2015–2016/ n = 458 (230 M/228F)/ aged 10–12 | Canada Cross Section | Objective measures of Pedestrian safety Parents survey for perceived pedestrian safety | Accelerometer and GPS in the watch 7 days And activity log | Average of minutes per day of active outdoor play | 1 km buffer zone around participants home | Sex/gender Race/ethnicity (white, non-white) Family characteristics: (single or dual parents’ household, number of siblings, household income, parental education, parents’ value of outdoor and income Pedestrian safety (traffic volume, traffic speed, traffic calming and pedestrian infrastructure | Spatial analysis/Statistical analysis |
12 | [41]/ Between 2011 and 2012/ n = 236 (104 M/132) for weekday analyses, and 210 (91 M/119F) for weekend days analyses. Age mean 9.8 for this study from 9 schools, grade 5–8 | New Zealand Cross-section from (KITC) project | CATI-Parents questionnaire on neighbourhood perception using items from Ranui Action Survey + measured road network | Accelerometer + GPS + Travel diary/ 7 days outside school hours | *%MVPA | Buffer 1000-m around participants home address | Sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity, (New Zealand European, Maori, Pacific Island, Indian/Asian/Other Ethnicity) SES (car availability for pick up) + neighbourhood exposures (measured GIS street connectivity, distance to school, destination accessibility, Ratio of High-speed roads around school + streetscape audit) | Spatial Analysis/ Statistical Analysis |
13 | [42]/ - n = 830 parents of 4th grade (412 M/418F) | United States Cross-section from [T-COPPE] longitudinal project | Parents questionnaire adapted from several surveys including the National Centre for Safe Routes to School Parents Survey, SPAN, (UH-PEAK), NEWS, and EnVivo) Personal safety + Traffic Safety | From parents’ questionnaire Inclusion criteria were that participants are within walking distance between home to school) GIS used to geocode participants address | Walking to school derived from National Safe Route To School Survey | Within walking distance of 3.2 km (using GIS and geocoded students’ home address | SES (car ownership, public assistance) race/ethnicity) | Spatial analysis to derive the area of exposures/ statistical analyses |
14 | [43]/ Between 2006 and 2008/ n = 1307 (639 M/661F)/ 10–11 years old from 23 schools | United Kingdom cross-section from (PEACH) longitudinal study | Children questionnaire (computerised) perception of the environment (aesthetic, nuisance, safety including traffic of places to cross, heavy traffic and road, social norm, constraints) | From the questionnaire Frequency in participation in active play, active travel and structured exercise and sport | Frequency of outdoor play, exercise and sport, active commuting Local-IM Area -IM | Not reported | Sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity (white, non-white, but not accounted in analysis) Perception of (Aesthetics, Safety, Social Norms, Nuisance, Constraints, accessibility, minutes of daylight from 3 pm till sunset), level of deprivation (using Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and derived from seven categories of deprivation, Daylight, Pubertal status, BMI | Statistical analysis |
15 | [44]/Sep.-Dec.2014/ n = 144(72 M,72F)/ aged 7–12 years (mean age of 9.7 children) | United States cross section | Parents questionnaire (perception of the environment) | From the parents’ questionnaire | Active play | Walking distance 10–15 min | Sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino, African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, White) Parents perception of built environment features Family SES | Statistical analysis |
16 | [45]/Between 2007–2009/ n = 145 (71 M/74F) / 6–11-years-old | United States Cohort cross-section study From (NIK) study | Parents questionnaire (demographics + prior victimization perception + stranger danger + crime perception) + Police reported crimes geocoded near participants home | Accelerometer/ 7 days | MVPA | Census blocks | Sex/gender, age, race, Household income, neighbourhood environmental walkability scale, collective efficacy, Prior crime victimisation survey, stranger danger and crime perception | Spatial analysis statistical analysis |
17 | [46]/ 2010/2011/ n = 354 (156 M) of grade 6th, and their parents | Portugal cross-section from [SALTA] longitudinal study | Parents questionnaire (parental physical activity, family demographic, and perception (adapted from NEWS and previous studies) Children questionnaire to derive mobility style | Derived from a questionnaire of previous week physical activity based on IPAQ | Independent mobility (IM) | Local destinations | Sex/gender, age, family demography (parents age, education), parental PA, parents’ perception of neighbourhood safety (sidewalk, street safety, fear from strangers, crime and traffic safety) | Statistical analysis |
18 | [31]/the year 2009/ Grade 3 – 5/- | Iran Cross-section | Parents survey + Children survey on the perception of environmental factors that prevent children from walking to school | From the parents’ survey Differed the trips from home to school and from school to home | Walking to school | Home-school | Sociodemographic | Statistical analysis |
19 | [15]/- n = 190 (49%F) from two public schools/ aged 6–9(10) years old | Austria Cross-section | Parents questionnaire (demographic and household + parents mobility licences + mobility habits Child interview (understand IM motivation and licences) | From semi-structured questionnaire + Travel Diary (using KONTIV-format) | Active Independent Mobility (AIM) | Neighbourhood | Age, family background (working status of parents, vehicles per household, Parental attitude (promoters, pragmatists protectors) + IM licence | Statistical analysis |
20 | [29]/ Baseline collected in 2012 with three years follow up T1 n = 2108/50.5%F/ aged 5–11 years | United States Longitudinal study | Measured Crime Risk Index (CRI) from for each zip code from actual crime statistic | Height and weight assessed at baseline 2012 and three years later | Body Mass Index (BMI) | Urban Zipcode | Sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity (White, Asian, African American, Hispanic), demography (median household income and education) + Crime Risk Index, 2 Consumer Expenditure Data, the density of food outlet (using walk score and places for PA | Statistical analysis |
21 | [47]/-/ n = 291 (150 M/141F)/ aged 5–6 and n = 919 (424 M/495F) aged 10–12 from 19 primary schools | Australia cross-sectional | Parents & children questionnaire parents’ questionnaire (children’s walking and cycling and Perceived safety) compared to Children (perception of safety) | Walking and cycling trips from parents’ questionnaire | Frequent Walking and Cycling | Walking distance | Sex/gender Family background (language, SES, marital status, education, cars’ ownerships, own a dog Perception of parents (traffic, safety, pub. Trans) Perception of children (neighbourhood and view of parents) | Statistical analysis |
22 | [48]/ Fall of 2018/ n = 660 (315 M/341F) and their parents grade 5–8 of age 7 – 12 (mean age 9.5) | The Netherland Cross-section | Parents survey for safety perception | Derived from children survey (at school) | Travel mode to school | Participants were of Home-school Within 1 km distance | Sex/gender, age, Household (income, car ownership), weather, street connectivity | Statistical analysis |
23 | [49]/July – December 2007 n = 926 (463 M,463F) included in the analysis/ aged 10–12 years | Australia cross-section Data from (TREK) project | Parents questionnaire & children questionnaire Parents completed self-administered questions | steps count using Pedometer/7 days | Activity space IM index computed using children questionnaires | within 800 and 1600 m of child's home | Sex/gender, age, SES level of the school neighbourhood (Low, medium, high), maternal Education, IM index derived from parents and child questionnaires Parents and Child perception of safety, school-specific walkability (high/low), digitise pedestrian network | Spatial analysis/statistical analysis |
24 | [50]/between Jan. 2015 and Dec.2016/ n = 387(185 M/182F)/ aged 10–13 years (mean age 11.5) | Canada Longitudinal from Data from (Active Play Study) | Measured crime Report Against a person & Property For 24 months before measures | GPS/7 days | Average minutes per day of active transportation | Crime in 1 km road network buffer distance around participants home to define a neighbourhood | Sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity (White) parental education, family income and family profile, season, walkability index (using streets connectivity from the length of roads, intersection density, average block length, connected node ratio), proximity to destinations (walk score, distance to school, population density) and pedestrian safety from traffic | Spatial analysis/statistical analysis |
25 | [51]/- Children from 73 elementary school/- | United States Cross-section | Measured Crime Use geocoded Crime rate (8 major crimes index against the person + Traffic danger (crash rate)) to indicate Neighbourhood Safety Level | GIS derived Neighbourhood walkability Level from (estimate potential walkers, pedestrian facilities, residential density, land use mix, street connectivity) | Neighbourhood Walkability level (identify potential walkers) | School attendance areas | Race/ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic, White) Poverty Derived—street walkability index, traffic danger, Neighbourhood-level walkability *Potential walkers (to school) | Spatial analysis/ spatial statistical analysis |