Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 14;19(8):4766. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084766

Table A1.

Characteristics and findings of quantitative studies included in review (n = 3).

Study
(Author & Year)
Country/Setting Place-Based Intervention
(and Category)
Theory of Change/Likely Mechanisms Sample Size and Characteristics
(Total Size, % Female, Mean Age)
Outcome Measure(s) Study Design/Statistical Analysis Key Findings Potential Harms Identified Methodological Limitations
Provision of community facilities
Levinger et al., 2020 [52] Australia; Elderly participants recruited from the general community in the suburbs close to the Seniors Exercise Parks in Melbourne, between October 2018 to November 2019 Seniors Exercise Park program: a 12-week structured supervised physical activity program using an outdoor exercise park, followed by a 6-month unstructured physical activity program (ongoing unsupervised access to the exercise park/twice a week exercise session with no formal structured group activity)
Each structured exercise session was followed by morning/afternoon tea
Actively promote community wellbeing through the provision of a unique exercise and social support program in elderly people as well as the effects of sustained engagement in physical activity on physical, mental, social and health outcomes
  • -

    95 elderly people (≥60 years) at baseline (mean age 73.0 ± 7.4; 82.1 % female)

  • -

    follow-up data for 80 people to compare pre-post intervention scores (mean age 72.8 ± 7.5; 81.3 %)

  • -

    58 people took part in 9-month follow up

  • -

    Health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-5L/visual analogue scale (VAS); Mental wellbeing using WHO-5 Wellbeing questionnaire; Loneliness using 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale; Depression using Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15); fear of falls using The Short Falls-Physical activity level using Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS)

  • -

    Physical function using 2-minute walk test; step test; 4 m walk test

  • -

    Falls Efficacy Scale International (Short FES-I) questionnaire; self-efficacy using The Self-Efficacy for Exercise (SEE); enjoyment using Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES); Social isolation and social support using Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS6)

  • -

    Fall risk assessment using The Fall Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com)

Pre-post study design
  • -

    Analysis of variance (ANOVA) repeated measures to compare scores on all measures at baseline and at 9-month follow-up

  • -

    A separate ANOVA repeated measures examine the effect of the exercise program on all outcomes between baseline and 3 months/3 months and 9 months

  • -

    Significant increase in physical activity level after the intervention (p < 0.01, moderate to large effect sizes)

  • -

    Significant improvements in all physical function measures (p < 0.01, small to large effect sizes), self-rated quality of life (p = 0.04, small effect size), wellbeing (p < 0.01, small effect size), fear of falls (p < 0.01, medium effect size), falls risk (p < 0.01, medium effect size), depressive symptoms (p = 0.01, small effect size), loneliness (p = 0.03, small effect size)

  • -

    No significant changes in socialisation and self-efficacy for exercise outcomes (p > 0.05)

  • -

    EQ-5D-5L: improvements in self-care (p < 0.01) and depression domains (p = 0.02)

  • -

    9 month follow up versus baseline: significant improvements in physical function (p < 0.05, moderate to large size effect); significant changes only in the health related quality of life mobility and self-care domains (p < 0.05, EQ-5D-5L), no changes in other domains; significant reductions in both fear of falls and falls risk (p < 0.01)

  • -

    very few changes were observed between 3 and 9 months follow up

  • -

    Improvement in depressive symptoms (Depression domain in Quality of Life Scale and GDS-15)

  • -

    Slight improvement in loneliness but with no changes in social isolation/support (UCLA3/LSNS6 did not suggest experienced severe loneliness or lack of social engagement at baseline)

None
  • -

    COVID-19, associated restrictions and lockdown causing smaller sample in 9 months follow up (underestimation)

  • -

    Level of physical activity was measured using self-reported questionnaire (CHAMPS), but has been widely used in research and suited for older Australian

  • -

    Relatively high proportion of females, whereas males have been reported to have specific preferences and characteristic of exercise interventions

Wang et al., 2020 [58] China; Elderly participants recruited from villages of Jinhua in Zhejiang, between July and October 2017 Community canteen services offered to older adults in 7 villages, compared with older adults from 7 closest villages without canteen services. Recipients of the canteen service (canteen group; CG) would show significantly better health than the non-recipients (NCG) Final sample size of 284 elderly people responded to the survey comprehensively
  • -

    140 participants with canteen services, 144 without

  • -

    148 females (52.1%)

  • -

    Average age 83.07 ± 4.19, with a range of 75 to 98 years

  • -

    General mental health using Chinese version of General Health Questionnaire(GHQ-12)

  • -

    Satisfaction with life using Chinese version of Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

  • -

    Social capital using Social Capital Questionnaire (SCQ) developed by Yang with acceptable reliability and validity

  • -

    Nutritional status using Chinese version of Revised Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form (MNA-SF)

  • -

    Cross-sectional design

  • -

    Independent t-test to compare continuous variables

  • -

    Chi-square test and Mann–Whitney test to compare categorical data

  • -

    ANOVA and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) test to compare nutritional differences among three groups (CG with government support and enterprise donation; CG with government support only; NCG)

  • -

    Adults in the CG had better mental health (mean = 1.39, SD = 1.95) and richer social capital (mean = 17.89, SD = 1.38) than NCG (GHQ: mean = 1.93/SD = 2.36; SCQ: mean = 17.48/SD = 1.64)

  • -

    Nutritional status was not significantly different between CG and NCG, but was significantly different when considering funding sources and daily meal costs: ie those in the CG group with government support and enterprise donation (n = 40) had better nutritional status (mean = 13.28, SD = 1.32)

  • -

    Those in the CG group had higher satisfaction with meals, self-evaluation of the meal nutrition, and regularity of meals compared to NCG

  • -

    No significant differences in age, gender, marital status, educational level, or income between the CG and the NCG.

Not measured
  • -

    Cross-sectional study and only evaluated relationships at specific time points

  • -

    Canteen service policies may be different for different provinces and result may not be applicable to poorer regions

  • -

    Not measured confounding factors but only measured the benefits, not what people did not like

  • -

    Self-report bias

Housing regeneration
Jalaludin et al., 2012 [53] Australia;
Participants recruited from all 57 households in a suburb 45 km to the southwest of the Sydney central business district from December 2008 to April 2009
Urban renewal program conducted between April 2009 and August 2010, and in the two streets of established social housing
  • -

    Internal upgrades: internal painting, replacement of kitchens, bathrooms and carpets where required, and general maintenance such as repairing water leakages, faulty windows and doors

  • -

    External upgrades: property painting, new front and back fencing, new carports, letterboxes, concrete driveways, drainage, landscaping and general external maintenance

  • -

    Social interventions: community engagement activities, learning and employment initiatives, and provision of a community meeting place.

The renewal program and its social components were intended to bring about improvement in social capital, social connectedness, a sense of community and in the economic conditions of residents.
  • -

    Total 42 participants followed up

  • -

    Only 28 people completed both pre- and post-intervention surveys and were analysed (20 females; 86% aged 18–54 years)

  • -

    Psychological distress using Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)

  • -

    Questions about social connectedness, social capital, self-rated health, psychological distress and health risk factors as taken from the New South Wales Population Health Survey

  • -

    Perceptions of neighbourhood safety, aesthetics and access to services within walking distance using the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS)

  • -

    Adequate physical activity defined as a total of 150 min per week

  • -

    Hazardous alcohol drinking defined as consumption of more than 2 standard drinks on any one day

Pre-post study design
  • -

    Only included individuals who completed both surveys

  • -

    Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test to compare independent proportions

  • -

    Paired chi-square tests (McNemar’s test) to compare paired proportions.

Note that due to multiple testing, a p value threshold of 0.0013 was used, after applying the Bonferroni
Correction but uncorrected exact p-values were
presented throughout the manuscript.
Uncorrected p values presented suggested that there were no significant differences on any measures.
The authors reported: no significant change in perceptions of neighbourhood aesthetics, safety or walkability, or in psychological distress and self-rated health.
They reported a significant increase in the proportion of people reporting that there were attractive buildings and homes in the neighbourhood (18% versus 64%), and of feeling that they belonged to the neighbourhood (48% versus 70%), that their area had a reputation for being a safe place (8% versus 27%), they felt safe walking down their street after dark (52% versus 85%), and that people who came to live in the neighbourhood would be more likely to stay rather than move elsewhere (13% versus 54%).
As the lowest uncorrected p-value presented was 0.0072, we infer that all corrected p-values showed no statistically significant findings.
None
  • -

    Small sample size

  • -

    No comparison group (to take into account the influence of any changes occurring over that period due to factors other than the program)

  • -

    Short follow-up

  • -

    Results in the specific setting of this social housing neighbourhood may not be generalisable to other settings

  • -

    Not possible to identify the active ingredients of the intervention, i.e., the urban renewal component versus the community engagement initiatives

Use of uncorrected p-values throughout made it hard to interpret the findings, suggesting that no differences were significant

SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval.