SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004
Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
96 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Infrastructure, policy and regulatory interventions to increase physical activity to prevent cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- The Effect of Human Settlement Pedestrian Environment on Gait of Older People: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Sport and dance interventions for healthy young people (15-24 years) to promote subjective well-being: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2014Pooled it
- The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Synthesising evidence for equity impacts of population-based physical activity interventions: a pilot study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2013Pooled it
- Use of global positioning systems to study physical activity and the environment: a systematic review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2011Pooled it
- A systematic review of interventions for promoting active transportation to school.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2011Pooled it
- Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Pooled it
- Organisational travel plans for improving health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- Assessing the unintended health impacts of road transport policies and interventions: translating research evidence for use in policy and practice.BMC public health · 2008Pooled it
- Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Pooled it
- Interventions to promote walking: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Pooled it
- Evaluation of an intervention to promote walking during the commute to work: a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Study protocol: the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an employer-led intervention to increase walking during the daily commute: the Travel to Work randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2015Trial
- Employers' views of promoting walking to work: a qualitative study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015Trial
- Increasing active travel: aims, methods and baseline measures of a quasi-experimental study.BMC public health · 2014Trial
- The walking school bus and children's physical activity: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.Pediatrics · 2011Trial
- Spatial and policy analysis of livability in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, USA.Cities & health · 2025Article
36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess what interventions are effective in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling and to assess the health effects of such interventions. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified from electronic databases, bibliographies, websites, and reference lists. REVIEW
methodsSystematic search and appraisal to identify experimental or observational studies with a prospective or controlled retrospective design that evaluated any intervention applied to an urban population or area by measuring outcomes in members of the local population.
results22 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found some evidence that targeted behaviour change programmes can change the behaviour of motivated subgroups, resulting (in the largest study) in a shift of around 5% of all trips at a population level. Single studies of commuter subsidies and a new railway station also showed positive effects. The balance of best available evidence about publicity campaigns, engineering measures, and other interventions suggests that they have not been effective. Participants in trials of active commuting experienced short term improvements in certain measures of health and fitness, but we found no good evidence on effects on health of any effective intervention at population level.
conclusionsThe best available evidence of effectiveness in promoting a modal shift is for targeted behaviour change programmes, but the social distribution of their effects is unclear and some other types of intervention have yet to be rigorously evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.