ArticlePloS one2014
How combined trip purposes are associated with transport choice for short distance trips. Results from a cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transport choice when travelling to a sports facility: the role of perceived route features - Results from a cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne way to increase physical activity is to stimulate a shift from car use to walking or cycling. In single-purpose trips, purpose was found to be an important predictor of transport choice. However, as far as known, no studies have been conducted to see how trips with combined purposes affect this decision. This study was designed to provide insight into associations between combined purposes and transport choice.
methodsAn online questionnaire (N = 3,663) was used to collect data concerning transport choice for four primary purposes: shopping, going to public natural spaces, sports, and commuting. Per combination of primary trip purpose and transport choice, participants were asked to give examples of secondary purposes that they combine with the primary purpose. Logistic regression analyses were used to model the odds of both cycling and walking versus car use.
resultsPrimary trip purposes combined with commuting, shopping, visiting private contacts or medical care were more likely to be made by car than by cycling or walking. Combinations with visiting catering facilities, trips to social infrastructure facilities, recreational outings, trips to facilities for the provision of daily requirements or private contacts during the trip were more likely to be made by walking and/or cycling than by car.
conclusionCombined trip purposes were found to be associated with transport choice. When stimulating active transport focus should be on the combined-trip purposes which were more likely to be made by car, namely trips combined with commuting, other shopping, visiting private contacts or medical care.
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.