Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25889383›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2015

Mechanisms underpinning use of new walking and cycling infrastructure in different contexts: mixed-method analysis.

Shannon Sahlqvist, Anna Goodman, Tim Jones, Jane Powell, Yena Song, David Ogilvie, iConnect consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Can environmental improvement change the population distribution of walking?Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Use of and short-term impacts of new cycling infrastructure in inner-Sydney, Australia: a quasi-experimental design.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shannon SahlqvistCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (C-PAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Rd, Geelong, Australia. shannon.sahlqvist@deakin.edu.au.
Anna GoodmanMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. anna.goodman@lshtm.ac.uk.
Tim JonesDepartment of Planning, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. tjones@brookes.ac.uk.
Jane PowellCentre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. jane.powell@uwe.ac.uk.
Yena SongSchool of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. y.song@soton.ac.uk.
David OgilvieMedical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. david.ogilvie@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
iConnect consortium

Funding

British Heart FoundationDepartment of Health PDF-2010-03-15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have evaluated the effects of infrastructural improvements to promote walking and cycling. Even fewer have explored how the context and mechanisms of such interventions may interact to produce their outcomes.

methodsThis mixed-method analysis forms part of the UK iConnect study, which aims to evaluate new walking and cycling routes at three sites - Cardiff, Kenilworth and Southampton. Applying a complementary follow-up approach, we first identified differences in awareness and patterns of use of the infrastructure in survey data from a cohort of adult residents at baseline in spring 2010 (n = 3516) and again one (n = 1849) and two (n = 1510) years later following completion of the infrastructural projects (Analysis 1). We subsequently analysed data from 17 semi-structured interviews with key informants to understand how the new schemes might influence walking and cycling (Analysis 2a). In parallel, we analysed cohort survey data on environmental perceptions (Analysis 2b). We integrated these two datasets to interpret differences across the sites consistent with a theoretical framework that hypothesised that the schemes would improve connectivity and the social environment.

resultsAfter two years, 52% of Cardiff respondents reported using the infrastructure compared with 37% in Kenilworth and 22% in Southampton. Patterns of use did not vary substantially between sites. 17% reported using the new infrastructure for transport, compared with 39% for recreation. Environmental perceptions at baseline were generally unfavourable, with the greatest improvements in Cardiff. Qualitative data revealed that all schemes had a recreational focus to varying extents, that the visibility of schemes to local people might be an important mechanism driving use and that the scale and design of the schemes and the contrast they presented with existing infrastructure may have influenced their use.

conclusionsThe dominance of recreational uses may have reflected the specific local goals of some of the projects and the discontinuity of the new infrastructure from a satisfactory network of feeder routes. Greater use in Cardiff may have been driven by the mechanisms of greater visibility and superior design features within the context of an existing environment that was conducive neither to walking or cycling nor to car travel.

Indexed as

BicyclingEnvironment DesignHealth PromotionTransportationWalkingAdolescentAdultAgedAwarenessFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecreationResidence Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID25889383
PMCPMC4340230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.