IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i2p170-d89820.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy, Research and Residents’ Perspectives on Built Environments Implicated in Heart Disease: A Concept Mapping Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Ivana Stankov

    (Urban Health Collaborative, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
    Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia)

  • Natasha J. Howard

    (Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia)

  • Mark Daniel

    (Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
    South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia)

  • Margaret Cargo

    (Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia)

Abstract

An underrepresentation of stakeholder perspectives within urban health research arguably limits our understanding of what is a multi-dimensional and complex relationship between the built environment and health. By engaging a wide range of stakeholders using a participatory concept mapping approach, this study aimed to achieve a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the built environments shaping disease risk, specifically cardiometabolic risk (CMR). Moreover, this study aimed to ascertain the importance and changeability of identified environments through government action. Through the concept mapping process, community members, researchers, government and non-government stakeholders collectively identified eleven clusters encompassing 102 built environmental domains related to CMR, a number of which are underrepresented within the literature. Among the identified built environments, open space, public transportation and pedestrian environments were highlighted as key targets for policy intervention. Whilst there was substantive convergence in stakeholder groups’ perspectives concerning the built environment and CMR, there were disparities in the level of importance government stakeholders and community members respectively assigned to pedestrian environments and street connectivity. These findings support the role of participatory methods in strengthening how urban health issues are understood and in affording novel insights into points of action for public health and policy intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivana Stankov & Natasha J. Howard & Mark Daniel & Margaret Cargo, 2017. "Policy, Research and Residents’ Perspectives on Built Environments Implicated in Heart Disease: A Concept Mapping Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:170-:d:89820
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/2/170/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/2/170/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosas, Scott R. & Kane, Mary, 2012. "Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 236-245.
    2. Sterman, J.D., 2006. "Learning from evidence in a complex world," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 505-514.
    3. Leyden, K.M., 2003. "Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1546-1551.
    4. Corburn, J., 2004. "Confronting the Challenges in Reconnecting Urban Planning and Public Health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(4), pages 541-546.
    5. Trochim, William M. K., 1989. "An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gavin R. McCormack & Autumn Nesdoly & Dalia Ghoneim & Tara-Leigh McHugh, 2020. "Realtors’ Perceptions of Social and Physical Neighborhood Characteristics Associated with Active Living: A Canadian Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Mohammad S. Jalali & Hazhir Rahmandad & Sally Lawrence Bullock & Alice Ammerman, 2017. "Dynamics of Implementation and Maintenance of Organizational Health Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Amal Chakraborty & Natasha J. Howard & Mark Daniel & Alwin Chong & Nicola Slavin & Alex Brown & Margaret Cargo, 2021. "Prioritizing Built Environmental Factors to Tackle Chronic and Infectious Diseases in Remote Northern Territory (NT) Communities of Australia: A Concept Mapping Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    2. Rosas, Scott R. & Ridings, John W., 2017. "The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 265-276.
    3. Orsi, Rebecca, 2017. "Use of multiple cluster analysis methods to explore the validity of a community outcomes concept map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 277-283.
    4. Frerichs, Leah & Young, Tiffany L. & Dave, Gaurav & Stith, Doris & Corbie-Smith, Giselle & Hassmiller Lich, Kristen, 2018. "Mind maps and network analysis to evaluate conceptualization of complex issues: A case example evaluating systems science workshops for childhood obesity prevention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 135-147.
    5. Ashlee N. Sawyer & Madison Combs & Viktor Clark & Eric K. Soule & Joseph G. L. Lee & Alison B. Breland, 2023. "Reactions to a Hypothetical Menthol Cigarette Ban among Sexual- and Gender-Minoritized Communities: A Concept Mapping Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-21, February.
    6. Stoyanov, Slavi & Jablokow, Kathryn & Rosas, Scott R. & Wopereis, Iwan G.J.H. & Kirschner, Paul A., 2017. "Concept mapping—An effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 238-244.
    7. Patricia E Jessiman & Katie Powell & Philippa Williams & Hannah Fairbrother & Mary Crowder & Joanna G Williams & Ruth Kipping, 2021. "A systems map of the determinants of child health inequalities in England at the local level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Dare, Lynn & Nowicki, Elizabeth, 2019. "Engaging children and youth in research and evaluation using group concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Szijarto, Barbara & Bradley Cousins, J., 2019. "Mapping the practice of developmental evaluation: Insights from a concept mapping study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    10. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    11. Donnelly, James P., 2017. "A systematic review of concept mapping dissertations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 186-193.
    12. Lisa M. Vaughn & Farrah Jacquez & Daniel Marschner & Daniel McLinden, 2016. "See what we say: using concept mapping to visualize Latino immigrant’s strategies for health interventions," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(7), pages 837-845, September.
    13. Lilian G. L. van der Ven & Elisa L. Duinhof & Michel L. A. Dückers & Marielle Jambroes & Marja J. H. van Bon-Martens, 2021. "Conceptualizing Vulnerability for Health Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Associated Measures in Utrecht and Zeist: A Concept Map," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Soellner, Renate & Lenartz, Norbert & Rudinger, Georg, 2017. "Concept mapping as an approach for expert-guided model building: The example of health literacy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 245-253.
    15. Nabitz, Udo & van Randeraad-van der Zee, Carlijn & Kok, Ineke & van Bon-Martens, Marja & Serverens, Peter, 2017. "An overview of concept mapping in Dutch mental health care," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 202-212.
    16. Kinga Varga & Ciaran MacDonncha & Laurence Blondel & Enrico Bozzano & Fabrice Burlot & Rute Costa & Nadine Debois & Dominique Delon & Antonio Figueiredo & Joerg Foerster & Masar Gjaka & Carlos Gonçalv, 2021. "Collective conceptualization of parental support of dual career athletes: The EMPATIA framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, September.
    17. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    18. Mohammed Abdullatif Almulla & Mahdi Mohammed Alamri, 2021. "Using Conceptual Mapping for Learning to Affect Students’ Motivation and Academic Achievement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Sridharan, Sanjeev & Jones, Bobby & Caudill, Barry & Nakaima, April, 2016. "Steps towards incorporating heterogeneities into program theory: A case study of a data-driven approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 88-97.
    20. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:170-:d:89820. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.