Back

Where should new parkrun events be located? Modelling the potential impact of 200 new events on socio-economic inequalities in access and participation.

Schneider, P. P.; Smith, R. A.; Bullas, A. M.; Bayley, T.; Haake, S. S.; Brennan, A.; Goyder, E.

2019-08-29 public and global health
10.1101/19004143 medRxiv
Show abstract

Backgroundparkrun, an international movement which organises free weekly 5km running events, has been widely praised for encouraging inactive individuals to participate in physical activity. Recently, parkrun received funding to establish 200 new events across England, specifically targeted at deprived communities. This study aims to investigate the relationships between geographic access, deprivation, and participation in parkrun, and to inform the planned expansion by proposing future event locations. MethodsWe conducted an ecological spatial analysis, using data on 455 parkrun events, 2,842 public green spaces, and 32,844 English census areas. Poisson regression was applied to investigate the relationships between the distances to events, deprivation, and parkrun participation rates. Model estimates were incorporated into a location-allocation analysis, to identify locations for future events that maximise deprivation-weighted parkrun participation. ResultsThe distance to the nearest event (in km) and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (score) were both independently negatively associated with local parkrun participation rates. Rate ratios were 0.921 (95%CI = 0.921-0.922) and 0.959 (0.959-0.959), respectively. The recommended 200 new event locations were estimated to increase weekly runs by 6.9% (from 82,824 to 88,506). Of the additional runs, 4.1% (n=231) were expected to come from the 10% most deprived communities. ConclusionParticipation in parkrun is wide spread across England. We provide recommendations for new parkrun event location, in order to increase participation from deprived communities. However, the creation of new events alone is unlikely to be an effective strategy. Further research is needed to study how barriers to participation can be reduced. Online Map, data, and source codeAn interactive online map is available here, and the annotated R source code and all data that were used to generate the results of this study are provided on a repository.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.3%
2
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
5
International Journal of Public Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
7
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
9
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
12
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
13
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
14
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
16
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
18
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
20
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%