Reference | Location, Setting | Sample Description | Design | Intervention Description | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Age | Gender, Race/Ethnicity, SES, BMI | ||||
Play Streets | ||||||
Cortinez-O’Ryan et al. (2017) [41] | Santiago, Chile Low-middle income neighborhoods with children ages 4–12. | Mean number of Attendees n = 60 (sd = 22, range: 29–126); Pedometers: n = 100 (51 intervention neighborhood). Intervention and comparison participants were statistically similar other than age. | Attendees: Age: 4–12 yrs Pedometers: 4–8 yrs Intervention children: 41% 4–8 years, 58.8% were 9–12 years. Comparison participants were significantly younger than intervention participants (65% were 4–8 years of age). | 51% girls, 100% Latin, 75% classified as low socio-economic position; 55.5% overweight or obese. | Quasi-Experimental: pre-posttest with comparison neighborhood | Street Play Initiative: “Juega en tu Barrio” (Play in your Neighborhood): closing 4 consecutive blocks for children to increase physical activity and outside play. Held 2/week (Wed. & Fri.) for 12 weeks from Sept.-Dec. 2014 from 17:30 to 20:30 with adult supervision (n = 26 total). All families with a child received a self-monitoring/reminder calendar and play materials (ropes, kites, paddleballs, diabolos (juggling), and balls). Local adult monitors led group games and incentivized children to meet each other during 1st 4 sessions. Stewards from CicloRecreo Via rerouted traffic with uniforms and identifiable signs. |
Murray & Devecchi (2016) [43] | Winterborough of Hantown, England, UK 5% most socio-economically deprived areas in England | n = 216 surveys (response rate = 216/1000); n = 25 semi-structured interviews. | Surveys: n = 148 local adults, n = 68 children; Interviews: n = 7 parents, n = 11 children at event, n = 7 children via phone. | 81% lived within 1 mile of Street Play project, 56% residents of the borough | Cross-sectional: surveys with adult and child sections (3 languages: English, Polish, Arabic); Semi-structured interviews | Street Play Project: “Hantown Street Play Project”: 1 pedestrian street: 16 consecutive Tuesdays June-Oct. 2013 3:30–5:30 pm. Traditional games were set up and supervised. Street was already closed to traffic prior to project. |
Zieff et al. (2016) [16] | San Francisco, CA | SOPARC: n = 1116 Comparison non-Play Street: n = 248 Surveys: n = 75 | SOPARC: 54.5% adults, 38.4% children (≤14 yrs. out on streets) Comparison: 87.7% adults, 4.9% children (≤14 yrs. out on streets) Surveys: 100% adults | SOPARC: 30.3% Latino, 28.1% Black, 23.5% white. Comparison: 57.2% Black Surveys: 8.0% Asian, 25.3% Black, 14.7% Hispanic, 34.7% white, 5.4% < high school graduate | Cross-sectional: SOPARC observations; Adult surveys | Play Streets: 1–2 city blocks closed to motorized traffic on weekends for 4 h to create an open place to play and do leisure physical activity summer of 2013. 1 of 8 sites funded by Partnership for a Healthier America. |
D’Haese et al. (2015) [17] | Ghent, Belgium | Accelerometers: n = 126 (intervention Play Streets street n = 54, control non-Play Streets street n = 72) | Intervention: mean age = 8.7 ± 2.2 yrs. | Intervention: 59.3% boys; 38.9% low family SES; 81% lived in Play Streets boundaries, 19% lived nearby the Play Streets area. | Non-equivalent pre-posttest design (both groups): accelerometers (8 days: 4 days non-Play Streets week, 4 days Play Streets week or vice versa); parent pre-post questionnaire | Play Streets: Prohibit car traffic and have street(s) open for children’s play, mainly to encourage free play. Play Streets (n = 19) included in study were held for at least 7 consecutive days from 2 to 7 pm in July and/or Aug. 2013 (Play Streets could happen a max of 14 total days in July and/or Aug., consecutive or not). 3 volunteers mandatory/Play Street, could “hire” for free a box of play equipment from city council, other play materials, hire an organized activity by city council, or organize activities themselves. |
Play Streets-style intervention with temporary closure of a street or parking lot | ||||||
McGlone (2016) [22] | Melbourne, Australia (Albert Park: affluent suburb of Melbourne) Pop-up Park users | Semi-structured Child interviews n = 20) Focus groups: children n = 9, adults n = 7 | Child interviews: 5–12 yrs. | Child interviews: 75% female (n = 15) Focus groups: child 77.8% female (n = 7), adults 100% female (n = 7); local residents and staff of Albert Park Primary School | Cross-sectional: teacher semi-structured interviews; 2 focus groups (adult and child) | Pop-up Park: 12–24 month trial (beginning July 2013) of a pop-up Park near a primary school, open at all times to the general public. |
Espinoza et al. (2012) [42] | Santa Ana, CA Specific neighborhood (92,701 zip code of Santa Ana, CA) that lacked access to indoor recreation, exercise facility, or outdoor play area (> 70% lived ≥20 min from one of these locations). | N = 24 families with children ages 6–14 yrs | Children: 53% were 6–10 yrs | Children: 53% male; 84% Latino/Hispanic; 92% annual income < $30,000; 88% lived in an apartment | Cross-sectional: non-random area sampling | Mobile Physical Activity Unit (MPAU): Abandoned bus was renovated and filled with playground equipment to create a MPAU, which was intended to “bring the playground” to participating families and allow children an opportunity to play in a safe and supervised environment. MPAU driven to a single school every Tuesday evening from 4 pm–6 pm and Saturday mornings from 10 am-12 pm for a total of 12 weeks. Children were assigned to one of two groups for play: 6–10 yrs. old and 11–14 yrs. old (given colored jerseys corresponding to each age group). Children could participate in a total of 3 different games and/or activities (selected and supervised by the research team and volunteers) along with 30 min of free play. Drinks and orange slices were provided. |