Published in

BioMed Central, BMC Public Health, 1(14), 2014

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-233

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Obesogenic environments: a systematic review of the association between the physical environment and adult weight status, the SPOTLIGHT project

Journal article published in 2014 by Joreintje D. Mackenbach ORCID, Harry Rutter, Sofie Compernolle, Ketevan Glonti, Jean-Michel Oppert, Helene Charreire, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug, Giel Nijpels, Jeroen Lakerveld
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Upload
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background Understanding which physical environmental factors affect adult obesity, and how best to influence them, is important for public health and urban planning. Previous attempts to summarise the literature have not systematically assessed the methodological quality of included studies, or accounted for environmental differences between continents or the ways in which environmental characteristics were measured. Methods We have conducted an updated review of the scientific literature on associations of physical environmental factors with adult weight status, stratified by continent and mode of measurement, accompanied by a detailed risk-of-bias assessment. Five databases were systematically searched for studies published between 1995 and 2013. Results Two factors, urban sprawl and land use mix, were found consistently associated with weight status, although only in North America. Conclusions With the exception of urban sprawl and land use mix in the US the results of the current review confirm that the available research does not allow robust identification of ways in which that physical environment influences adult weight status, even after taking into account methodological quality.