Jana A. Hirsch, Katie A. Meyer, Marc Peterson, Daniel A. Rodriguez, Yan Song, Ke Peng, Jun Huh, Penny Gordon-Larsen
Abstract
Neighborhood transportation infrastructure and public recreational facilities are theorized to improve the activity, weight, and cardiometabolic profiles of individuals living in close proximity to these resources. However, owing to data limitations, there has not been adequate study of the influence of timing and placement of new infrastructure on health over time.
This protocol details methods of the four cities study to perform retrospective field audits in order to capitalize on existing longitudinal health data from the coronary artery risk development in young adults (CARDIA) study. We developed and verified measures of recreation facilities (trails, parks) and transportation infrastructure (bus, light rail, bicycle parking, bicycle paths) in Birmingham, AL; Chicago, IL; Minneapolis, MN; and Oakland, CA (USA). We identify introductions, renovations, and closures between 1985 and 2010 to develop measures of facility and infrastructure change. Ultimately, these data were linked to CARDIA sites' respondents' geographic locations over the 25-year study period to examine associations with health behaviors and outcomes.
Data available for retrospective audits was inconsistent by city, primarily due to record-keeping differences. We found large increases in bicycle infrastructure, with the exception of Birmingham, AL, USA. Excluding the addition of a new rail line in Minneapolis, MN, USA, few changes occurred in bus service, rail, and parks.
Our method represents innovation toward the collection of retrospective neighborhood data for use in longitudinal analyses. The data produced give insight into the way neighborhood infrastructure has changed over time and the potential relationship between these changes and health behaviors.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,257,527
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,571
of 9,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,034
of 299,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#49
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
