Evaluating causal relationships between urban built environment characteristics and obesity: A methodological review of observational studies

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Martin, Adam ^a   Ogilvie, David ^b   Suhrcke, Marc ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Built environment; Causal inference; Evidence synthesis; Land use; Natural experimental studies; Neighbourhood self selection; Obesity; Physical activity

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EFFECT SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OBESITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; RANDOMIZATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; STUDY DESIGN; UNITED KINGDOM; URBAN AREA; CITY; DEMOGRAPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; FACTUAL DATABASE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

CITIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENVIRONMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; OBESITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 84924721064     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14795868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12966-014-0142-8     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Sassi F, Devaux M, Cecchini M, Rusticelli E: The Obesity Epidemic: Analysis of Past and Projected Future Trends in Selected OECD Countries. Paris: OECD; 2009.
2. Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, Singh GM, Gutierrez HR, Lu Y, Bahalim AN, Farzadfar F, Riley LM, Ezzati M: National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet 2011, 377:557-567.
3. Zhao Z, Kaestner R: Effects of urban sprawl on obesity. J Health Econ 2010, 29:779-787.
4. Feng J, Glass TA, Curriero FC, Stewart WF, Schwartz BS: The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health Place 2010, 16:175-190.
5. Ding D, Gebel K: Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: what have we learned from reviewing the literature? Health Place 2012, 18:100-105.
6. McCormack G, Shiell A: In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011, 8:125.
7. Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Dzewaltowski DA, Owen N: Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the role of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. Am J Prev Med 2002, 23:5-14.
8. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW: Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet 2012, 380:258-271.
9. Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Reeves B, Sutton M, Thompson S: Using Natural Experiments to Evaluate Population Health Interventions: Guidance for Producers and Users of Evidence. London: Medical Research Council; 2011. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/natural-experiments-guidance/.
10. Qin J, Zhang B: Empirical-likelihood-based difference-in-differences estimators. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 2008, 70:329-349.
11. Grafova I B, Freedman Vicki A, Lurie N, Kumar R, Rogowski J: The difference-in-difference method: Assessing the selection bias in the effects of neighborhood environment on health. Economics and Human Biology 2014, 13:20-33.
12. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB: Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996, 91:444-455.
13. Cousens S, Hargreaves J, Bonell C, Armstrong B, Thomas J, Kirkwood BR, Hayes R: Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public-health interventions: statistical analysis and causal inference. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011, 65:576-581.
14. Cao X: Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environ Plann A 2010, 42:487-504.
15. Austin PC: A critical appraisal of propensity score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 2008, 27:2037-2049.
16. Blundell R, Costa Dias M: Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconometrics. London: Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, UCL; 2002.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Brozek J, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad MH, Schünemann HJ: GRADE guidelines: 9: rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1311-1316.
18. Mokhtarian PL, Cao X: Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transp Res B Methodol 2008, 42:204-228.
19. Jones AM, Rice N: Econometric evaluation of health policies. In The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics. Edited by Glied S, Smith PC. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
20. Petticrew M, Cummins S, Ferrell C, Findlay A, Higgins C, Hoy C, Kearns A, Sparks L: Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health? Public Health 2005, 119:751-757.
21. Jones A: Evaluating Public Health Interventions with Non-Experimental Data Analysis. York: University of York Health Econometrics and Data Group; 2006.
22. Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, Rice N, Sculpher M, Sowden A: Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy 2009, 93:85-92.
23. Gebel K, Bauman AE, Petticrew M: The physical environment and physical activity: a critical appraisal of review articles. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32:361-369.
24. Higgins JPT, Ramsay C, Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Shea B, Valentine JC, Tugwell P, Wells G: Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synthesis Methods 2013, 4:12-25.
25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Promoting and Creating Built or Natural Environments that Encourage and Support Physical Activity. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph8.
26. Kline RB: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, USA: The Guilford Press; 2011.
27. Baltagi B: Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. London: Wiley; 2008.
28. Martin A, Goryakin Y, Suhrcke M: Does active commuting improve psychological wellbeing? Longitudinal evidence from eighteen waves of the British Household Panel Survey. Prev Med 2014, :. In Press.
29. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH: Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci 2013, 24(6):920-928.
30. Anderson ML, Matsa DA: Are restaurants really supersizing America? Am Econ J: Appl Econ 2011, 3:152-188.
31. Chen SE, Florax RJ, Snyder SD: Obesity and fast food in urban markets: a new approach using geo-referenced micro data. Health Econ 2012, 22:835-856.
32. Dunn RA: The effect of fast-food availability on obesity: an analysis by gender, race, and residential location. Am J Agric Econ 2010, 92:1149-1164.
33. Dunn RA, Sharkey JR, Horel S: The effect of fast-food availability on fast-food consumption and obesity among rural residents: an analysis by race/ethnicity. Econ Hum Biol 2012, 10:1-13.
34. Fish JS, Ettner S, Ang A, Brown AF: Association of perceived neighborhood safety on body mass index. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:2296-2303.
35. Zick C, Hanson H, Fan J, Smith K, Kowaleski-Jones L, Brown B, Yamada I: Re-visiting the relationship between neighbourhood environment and BMI: an instrumental variables approach to correcting for residential selection bias. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10:27.
36. Courtemanche C, Carden A: Supersizing supercenters? The impact of Walmart Supercenters on body mass index and obesity. J Urban Econ 2011, 69:165-181.
37. Kling JR, Liebman JB, Katz LF, Sanbonmatsu L: Moving to Opportunity and Tranquility: Neighborhood Effects on Adult Economic Self-Sufficiency and Health from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2004.
38. Kapinos KA, Yakusheva O: Environmental influences on young adult weight gain: evidence from a natural experiment. J Adolesc Health 2011, 48:52-58.
39. Franzini L, Elliott MN, Cuccaro P, Schuster M, Gilliland MJ, Grunbaum JA, Franklin F, Tortolero SR: Influences of physical and social neighborhood environments on children's physical activity and obesity. Am J Public Health 2009, 99:271-278.
40. Gibson DM: The neighborhood food environment and adult weight status: estimates from longitudinal data. Am J Public Health 2011, 101:71-78.
41. Powell LM: Fast food costs and adolescent body mass index: evidence from panel data. J Health Econ 2009, 28:963-970.
42. Sandy R, Liu G, Ottensmann J, Tchernis R, Wilson J, Ford OT: Studying the Child Obesity Epidemic with Natural Experiments. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2009.
43. Filomena S, Scanlin K, Morland KB: Brooklyn, New York foodscape 2007-2011: a five-year analysis of stability in food retail environments. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10:46.
44. Chou S-Y, Grossman M, Saffer H: An economic analysis of adult obesity: results from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. J Health Econ 2004, 23:565-587.
45. White H: An Introduction to the use of Randomized Control Trials to Evaluate Development Interventions. Washington DC, USA: The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2011.
46. Haynes L, Service O, Goldacre B, Torgerson D: Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials. London: Cabinet Office; 2012.
47. Goldacre B: Building Evidence into Education. London: Department for Education; 2013.
48. Macintyre S: Evidence based policy making. BMJ 2003, 326:5-6.
49. Macintyre S: Good intentions and received wisdom are not good enough: the need for controlled trials in public health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011, 65:564-567.
50. Waddington H, White H, Snilstveit B, Hombrados JG, Vojtkova M, Davies P, Bhavsar A, Eyers J, Koehlmoos TP, Petticrew M, Valentine JC, Tugwell P: How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit. J Dev Effectiveness 2012, 4:359-387.
51. Martin A, Suhrcke M, Ogilvie D: Financial incentives to promote active travel: an evidence review and economic framework. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43:e45-e57.
52. Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, Petticrew M: Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005, 59:886-892.
53. Jadad AR, Enkin MW: Bias in randomized controlled trials. In Randomized Controlled Trials. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2008.
54. Barrett CB, Carter MR: The power and pitfalls of experiments in development economics: some non-random reflections. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 2010, 32:515-548.
55. Petticrew M: Commentary: sinners, preachers and natural experiments. Int J Epidemiol 2011, 40:454-456.
56. Rodrik D: The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but How Shall We Learn?. Cambridge MA, USA: John F. Kennedy School of Government; 2008.
57. Banerjee AV, Duflo E: The Experimental Approach to Development Economics. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2008.
58. Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J: Moving to opportunity: an experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:1576-1582.
59. Rutter J: Evidence and Evaluation in Policy Making: a Problem of Supply or Demand?. London: Institute for Government; 2012.
60. Martens EP, Pestman WR, de Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH: Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology 2006, 17:260-267. doi:210.1097/1001.ede.0000215160.0000288317.cb.
61. Bodea TD, Garrow LA, Meyer MD, Ross CL: Explaining obesity with urban form: a cautionary tale. Transportation 2008, 35:179-199.
62. Heckman J, Ichimura H, Smith J, Todd P: Characterizing Selection Bias using Experimental Data. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 1998.
63. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S: Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv 2008, 22:31-72.
64. DiNardo J: Natural experiments and quasi-natural experiments. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Edited by Durlauf SN, Blume LE. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
65. Diamond JM, Robinson JA: Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge MA, USA: Belknap 2010.
66. Last JM: A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
67. Dunning T: Improving causal inference: strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Pol Res Q 2008, 61:282-293.
68. Gelman A: Analysis of variance-why it is more important than ever. Ann Stat 2005, 33:1-53.
69. Bagley MN, Mokhtarian PL: The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann Reg Sci 2002, 36:279-297.
70. Boone-Heinonen J, Gordon-Larsen P, Guilkey DK, Jacobs DR Jr, Popkin BM: Environment and physical activity dynamics: the role of residential self-selection. Psychol Sport Exercise 2011, 12:54-60.
71. Heckman J: Building bridges between structural and program evaluation approaches to evaluating policy. J Econ Lit 2010, 48:356.
72. Heckman J, Vytlacil E: Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation. Econometrica 2005, 73:669-738.
73. Angrist JD, Pischke JS: The credibility revolution in empirical economics: how better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. J Econ Perspect 2010, 24:3-30.
74. Deaton A: Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. J Econ Lit 2010, 48:424-455.
75. Levine BJ: A question too complex for statistical modeling. Am J Public Health 2011, 101:773-773.
76. Card D, Kluve J, Weber A: Active labour market policy evaluations: a meta-analysis. Econ J 2010, 120:F452-F477.
77. Reeves B, Deeks J, Higgins J, Wells G: Including non-randomized studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Edited by Higgins J, Green S. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2011.
78. Deeks J, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden A, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman D: Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7(27):1-173.
79. Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist G, Timmer A, Kunz R, Akl E, Schünemann H, Briel M, Nordmann A, Pregno S, Oxman A: Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 13(4):Art. No.: MR000012. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3.
80. Glazerman S, Levy DM, Myers D: Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings impacts. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2003, 589:63-93.
81. Athanasopoulou A, Bradburn P, Hodgson H, Jennings A, Williams T, Kell M: Evaluation in Government. London: National Audit Office; 2013.
82. Dehejia RH, Wahba S: Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 1999, 94:1053-1062.
83. Dehejia RH, Wahba S: Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 2002, 84:151-161.
84. Smith JA, Todd PE: Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? J Econ 2005, 125:305-353.
85. LaLonde RJ: Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 1986, 76:604-620.
86. Couch KA, Bifulco R: Can nonexperimental estimates replicate estimates based on random assignment in evaluations of school choice? a within-study comparison. J Policy Anal Manag 2012, 31:729-751.
87. Duvendack M, Hombrados JG, Palmer-Jones R, Waddington H: Assessing 'what works' in international development: meta-analysis for sophisticated dummies. J Dev Effectiveness 2012, 4:456-471.
88. Murray J, Farrington D, Eisner M: Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: the Cambridge quality checklists. J Exp Criminol 2009, 5:1-23.
89. Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010, 25:603-605.
90. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C, Drummond M: Evidence synthesis, economics and public policy. Res Synthesis Methods 2010, 1:126-135.
91. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. J Am Med Assoc 2000, 283:2008-2012.
92. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336:924-926.
93. Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S: Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington DC, USA: Department of Justice; 1997.
94. Cabinet Office/Government Social Research Service: Rapid Evidence Assessment Toolkit. London:; 2013. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance.
95. Campbell S, Harper G: Quality in Policy Impact Evaluation: Understanding the effects of Policy from other Influences (supplementary Magenta Book guidance). London: HM Treasury; 2012.
96. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT: Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36(3):666-676.
97. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S: A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 2004, 1:176-184.
98. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Chapter 5: systematic reviews of economic evaluations. In Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: University of York; 2009:199-219.
99. Higgins J, Green S: Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
100. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535.
101. Heckman J: Instrumental variables: a study of implicit behavioral assumptions used in making program evaluations. J Hum Resour 1997, 32, No. 3:441-462.
102. Imbens GW, Angrist JD: Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 1994, 62:467-475.
103. Ichino A, Winter-Ebmer R: Lower and upper bounds of returns to schooling: an exercise in IV estimation with different instruments. Eur Econ Rev 1999, 43:889-901.
104. Heckman JJ, Urzua S: Comparing IV with structural models: what simple IV can and cannot identify. J Econ 2010, 156:27-37.
105. Newhouse JP, McClellan M: Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of Instrumental Variables. Annu Rev Public Health 1998, 19:17-34.
106. Angrist J, Krueger AB: Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2001.
107. Williamson E, Morley R, Lucas A, Carpenter J: Propensity scores: from naïve enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res 2012, 21:273-293.
108. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007, 370:1453-1457.
109. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau S, Nizard R, Ravaud P: A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:1233-1240.
110. Jones A, Bentham G, Foster C, Hillsdon M, Panter J: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices - Obesogenic Environments - Evidence Review. London: Government Office for Science; 2007.
111. Fotheringham AS, Wong DW: The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plann A 1991, 23:1025-1044.