| Title |
Park-Use Behavior and Perceptions by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Immigrant Status in Minneapolis, MN: Implications on Park Strategies for Addressing Health Disparities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-015-0339-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirti V. Das, Yingling Fan, Simone A. French |
| Abstract |
The study examines the connections between minority status, park use behavior, and park-related perceptions using recent survey data from three low-income neighborhoods in Minneapolis, MN. Blacks and foreign-born residents are found to underutilize parks. Blacks, Asians, and American Indians perceive fewer health benefits of parks than whites, including the benefits of parks for providing exercise/relaxation opportunities and family gathering spaces. Foreign-born residents, blacks, and Hispanics perceive greater and unique barriers to park use in terms of not feeling welcome, cultural and language restrictions, program schedule and pricing concerns, and/or facility maintenance and mismatch concerns. When designing park strategies for addressing health disparities, we recommend to focus the efforts on increasing awareness of park-related health benefits and removing specific park use barriers among minority and foreign-born communities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 18% |
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 26 | 25% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 188. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2022.
All research outputs
#192,674
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#10
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,380
of 399,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.