Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26510525›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Development and validation of a self-administered questionnaire to estimate the distance and mode of children's travel to school in urban India.

Shailaja Tetali, Phil Edwards, G V S Murthy, I Roberts

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Road traffic injuries to children during the school commute in Hyderabad, India: cross-sectional survey.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2016
    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

4 authors.

Shailaja TetaliIndian Institute of Public Health, Plot No # 1, ANV Arcade, Amar Co-op Society, Madhapur, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad, 500033, India. shailaja.t@iiphh.org.
Phil EdwardsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. phil.edwards@lshtm.ac.uk.
G V S MurthyIndian Institute of Public Health, Plot No # 1, ANV Arcade, Amar Co-op Society, Madhapur, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad, 500033, India. murthy.gvs@iiphh.org.
I RobertsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. ian.roberts@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough some 300 million Indian children travel to school every day, little is known about how they get there. This information is important for transport planners and public health authorities. This paper presents the development of a self-administered questionnaire and examines its reliability and validity in estimating distance and mode of travel to school in a low resource urban setting.

methodsWe developed a questionnaire on children's travel to school. We assessed test re-test reliability by repeating the questionnaire one week later (n = 61). The questionnaire was improved and re-tested (n = 68). We examined the convergent validity of distance estimates by comparing estimates based on the nearest landmark to children's homes with a 'gold standard' based on one-to-one interviews with children using detailed maps (n = 50).

resultsMost questions showed fair to almost perfect agreement. Questions on usual mode of travel (κ 0.73- 0.84) and road injury (κ 0.61- 0.72) were found to be more reliable than those on parental permissions (κ 0.18- 0.30), perception of safety (κ 0.00- 0.54), and physical activity (κ -0.01- 0.07). The distance estimated by the nearest landmark method was not significantly different than the in-depth method for walking , 52 m [95 % CI -32 m to 135 m], 10 % of the mean difference, and for walking and cycling combined, 65 m [95 % CI -30 m to 159 m], 11 % of the mean difference. For children who used motorized transport (excluding private school bus), the nearest landmark method under-estimated distance by an average of 325 metres [95 % CI -664 m to 1314 m], 15 % of the mean difference.

conclusionsA self-administered questionnaire was found to provide reliable information on the usual mode of travel to school, and road injury, in a small sample of children in Hyderabad, India. The 'nearest landmark' method can be applied in similar low-resource settings, for a reasonably accurate estimate of the distance from a child's home to school.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentChildFemaleGeographyHumansIndiaMaleReproducibility of ResultsSchoolsSelf ReportStudentsTransportationTravelUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID26510525
PMCPMC4625478

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.