• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

采用综合方法评估“弗林特市的家庭在哪里玩耍”。

Using an integrated approach to evaluate "Where do Flint's families play".

作者信息

Panken Sarah L, Holaly-Zembo Lauren

机构信息

Michigan Fitness Foundation, Lansing (Ms Panken); and Crim Fitness Foundation, Flint (Ms Holaly-Zembo), Michigan.

出版信息

J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 May-Jun;21 Suppl 3:S96-100. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000213.

DOI:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000213
PMID:25828231
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Once home to a thriving auto industry, Flint, Michigan, is now an economically distressed city of just over 100 000 people. With more than one-third of the population obese and one-third of the population younger than 18 years, it is essential to have safe spaces for children and families to be physically active. To address this, the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities Flint Community Partnership (Partnership) worked to revitalize local parks and evaluate these efforts to effectively guide future park resource allocation, investments, and approaches to create a more equitable, vibrant parks system.

METHODS

After 2 years of initial park investments, 2 intervention parks (Max Brandon Park and Bassett Park) and 2 comparison parks (Brennan Park and Whaley Park) were selected for direct observation to determine whether parks that experienced investment had more use and users participating in higher levels of physical activity than in parks with no investment. In addition, the Partnership implemented community engagement strategies to hear residents' needs and desires for parks, as well as technical assessments such as a park facilities assessment, policy review, and equity analysis.

RESULTS

Intervention parks had a higher number of uses and higher physical activity levels than comparison parks. This complemented community engagement results that highlighted people do not use parks that are perceived as unsafe and in poor condition. Even though demand for parks can be met with the current supply of park space, many parks had outdated and hazardous equipment; this, plus inconsistent maintenance, (perceived) lack of safety, and lack of activities were the main deterrents to using city parks for physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Parks receiving investment had higher use and physical activity levels; thus, investing in park facilities and programming could increase opportunities for Flint residents to lead more active, healthy lifestyles.

摘要

背景

密歇根州弗林特市曾是繁荣的汽车工业基地,如今却是一个经济不景气的城市,人口刚超过10万。该市超过三分之一的人口肥胖,三分之一的人口年龄在18岁以下,因此为儿童和家庭提供安全的体育活动空间至关重要。为解决这一问题,弗林特健康儿童、健康社区伙伴关系组织(伙伴关系组织)致力于振兴当地公园,并评估这些努力,以有效指导未来公园资源的分配、投资和创建更公平、更有活力的公园系统的方法。

方法

在对公园进行了两年的初步投资后,选择了2个干预公园(马克斯·布兰登公园和巴塞特公园)和2个对照公园(布伦南公园和惠利公园)进行直接观察,以确定经历过投资的公园是否比未投资的公园有更多的使用量,以及参与更高水平体育活动的使用者更多。此外,伙伴关系组织实施了社区参与策略,以了解居民对公园的需求和期望,以及进行公园设施评估、政策审查和公平性分析等技术评估。

结果

干预公园的使用量和体育活动水平高于对照公园。这与社区参与结果相补充,该结果突出表明人们不会使用那些被认为不安全且状况不佳的公园。尽管当前的公园空间供应能够满足对公园的需求,但许多公园的设备陈旧且危险;再加上维护不一致、(人们感觉到的)缺乏安全性以及缺乏活动,这些是人们不使用城市公园进行体育活动的主要阻碍因素。

结论

获得投资的公园有更高的使用量和体育活动水平;因此,投资公园设施和项目可以增加弗林特居民过上更积极、健康生活方式的机会。

相似文献

1
Using an integrated approach to evaluate "Where do Flint's families play".采用综合方法评估“弗林特市的家庭在哪里玩耍”。
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 May-Jun;21 Suppl 3:S96-100. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000213.
2
Redesigning a neighborhood park to increase physical activity: a community-based participatory approach.重新设计社区公园以增加身体活动:一种基于社区的参与式方法。
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 May-Jun;21 Suppl 3:S101-5. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000206.
3
Effects of park improvements on park use and physical activity: policy and programming implications.公园改善对公园使用和身体活动的影响:政策和规划启示。
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Dec;37(6):475-80. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.017.
4
A Natural Experiment: Results of Community-Designed Park Improvements on Park Use and Physical Activity.自然实验:社区设计的公园改善对公园使用和身体活动的结果。
Health Promot Pract. 2022 Jul;23(4):577-582. doi: 10.1177/15248399211026265. Epub 2021 Jul 7.
5
The potential for pocket parks to increase physical activity.袖珍公园增加身体活动的潜力。
Am J Health Promot. 2014 Jan-Feb;28(3 Suppl):S19-26. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.130430-QUAN-213.
6
Promoting physical activity in high-poverty neighborhood parks: A cluster randomized controlled trial.在高贫困社区公园中促进身体活动:一项集群随机对照试验。
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Aug;186:130-138. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.001. Epub 2017 Jun 3.
7
Active use and perceptions of parks as urban assets for physical activity: A mixed-methods study.积极利用公园作为城市资产促进身体活动:一项混合方法研究。
Health Place. 2021 Sep;71:102660. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102660. Epub 2021 Aug 25.
8
Physical activity in parks: A randomized controlled trial using community engagement.公园内的身体活动:使用社区参与的随机对照试验。
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Nov;45(5):590-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.06.015.
9
Demographic characteristics and physical activity behaviors in sixteen Michigan parks.密歇根州 16 个公园的人口特征和体育活动行为。
J Community Health. 2012 Apr;37(2):507-12. doi: 10.1007/s10900-011-9471-6.
10
Neighborhood, family and individual characteristics related to adolescent park-based physical activity.与青少年基于公园的体育活动相关的邻里、家庭和个人特征。
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76:31-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.001. Epub 2015 Apr 11.

引用本文的文献

1
A Systematic Review of the Impact of Changes to Urban Green Spaces on Health and Education Outcomes, and a Critique of Their Applicability to Inform Economic Evaluation.城市绿地变化对健康和教育结果影响的系统评价,以及对其在经济评估中应用的适用性的批判。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Oct 31;21(11):1452. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21111452.
2
Effects of park-based interventions on health-related outcomes: A systematic review.基于公园的干预措施对健康相关结果的影响:系统评价。
Prev Med. 2021 Jun;147:106528. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106528. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
3
Applying a mixed-methods evaluation to Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities.
对“健康儿童,健康社区”项目进行混合方法评估。
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015 May-Jun;21 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S16-26. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000233.