许多研究已经检查了安全性与小学学龄儿童主动行动形式之间的关联。然而,研究测量方法和解决要素的差异导致了研究结果的不一致,这可能对推进研究人员关于这一领域的知识构成障碍。为了评估当前的研究状况,我们在研究邻里安全暴露(感知和测量)对儿童户外主动行动行为影响的研究中综合了方法学措施,并利用这一分析提出了未来的研究方向。
使用预定义的资格标准对六个电子数据库中的文献进行了系统搜索,并于2020年7月结束。两名审稿人筛选了文献摘要,以确定研究的包容性,两名评审员独立进行方法学质量评估,对纳入的研究进行评价.
25项同行评审研究符合纳入标准。在25项研究中,有12项客观地测量了主动行动行为和健康特征,并在另外13项研究中进行了报道。21项研究在分析和输出中忽略了时空维度。儿童社区的划分在10项研究中有所不同,以及选择主观测量的15项研究。在22项研究中获得的安全感知大多是静态的,主要是通过父母收集的,在6项研究中,实际的安全性测量方法存在差异。研究中确定的示意图约束“测量方法”有助于概述“what”(决定因素)之间的三维关系,在方法论概念框架内的\'where\'(空间)和\'when\'(时间)。
相关研究中缺乏标准化的测量方法可能导致了当前关于主动迁移的研究结果的多样性。空间(局部性)和时间(时间)特征,邻居,和代表安全。忽视现有的差距和措施的异质性可能会影响证据的可靠性,并在综合研究结果时造成限制。这可能会给决策者带来严重的偏见。鉴于对儿童健康研究的兴趣与日俱增,我们在措施的设计和方法中提出了替代方案,这些方案可以指导旨在改善儿童主动行动能力和安全性的政策制定者未来的循证研究。
Numerous studies have examined the association between safety and primary school-aged children\'s forms of active mobility. However, variations in studies\' measurement methods and the elements addressed have contributed to inconsistencies in research outcomes, which may be forming a barrier to advancing researchers\' knowledge about this field. To assess where current research stands, we have synthesised the methodological measures in studies that examined the effects of neighbourhood safety exposure (perceived and measured) on children\'s outdoor active mobility behaviour and used this analysis to propose future research directions.
A systematic search of the literature in six electronic databases was conducted using pre-defined eligibility criteria and was concluded in July 2020. Two reviewers screened the literature abstracts to determine the studies\' inclusion, and two reviewers independently conducted a methodological quality assessment to rate the included studies.
Twenty-five peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. Active mobility behaviour and health characteristics were measured objectively in 12 out of the 25 studies and were reported in another 13 studies. Twenty-one studies overlooked spatiotemporal dimensions in their analyses and outputs. Delineations of children\'s neighbourhoods varied within 10 studies\' objective measures, and the 15 studies that opted for subjective measures. Safety perceptions obtained in 22 studies were mostly static and primarily collected via parents, and dissimilarities in actual safety measurement methods were present in 6 studies. The identified schematic constraints in studies\' measurement methods assisted in outlining a three-dimensional relationship between \'what\' (determinants), \'where\' (spatial) and \'when\' (time) within a methodological conceptual framework.
The absence of standardised measurement methods among relevant studies may have led to the current diversity in findings regarding active mobility, spatial (locality) and temporal (time) characteristics, the neighbourhood, and the representation of safety. Ignorance of the existing gaps and heterogeneity in measures may impact the reliability of evidence and poses a limitation when synthesising findings, which could result in serious biases for policymakers. Given the increasing interest in children\'s health studies, we suggested alternatives in the design and method of measures that may guide future evidence-based research for policymakers who aim to improve children\'s active mobility and safety.