ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2019
Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Japanese Version of the Physical Effort Scale.Journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Effort minimization: A permanent, dynamic, and surmountable influence on physical activity.Journal of sport and health science · 2025Article
- Burden of disability in type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effects of physical activity.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since 1980, many studies have evaluated whether stair-use prompts increased physical activity by quantifying changes in stair use. To more completely evaluate changes in physical activity, this study addressed the often-overlooked assessment of climbing up escalators by evaluating the degree to which stair-use sign prompts increased active ascent-defined as stair use or escalator climbing. Over 5 months, at an airport stairs/escalator point of choice, we video-recorded passersby (N = 13,544) who ascended either stairs or escalators, on 10 days with signs and 10 days without signs. Ascenders using the stairs, standing on the escalator, and climbing the escalator were compared on days with versus without signs using multivariable logistic regression. The percentage of ascenders on days with versus without signs were as follows: stair use, 6.9 versus 3.6 percent; escalator standing, 75.2 versus 76.0 percent; and escalator climbing, 18.5 versus 20.4 percent. Signs more than doubled the odds of stair use (vs. escalator use; OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.90-2.68; p < .001). Signs decreased the odds of escalator climbing (vs. escalator standing or stair use); OR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.82-0.99; p = .028). Signs increased the odds of active ascent versus escalator standing by 15 percent (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.05-1.25; p = .002). Although stair-use prompts increased stair use more than twofold (125%), they increased active ascent by only 15 percent, partly because escalator climbing-a behavior not targeted by the intervention-decreased. Although our results corroborated the established consensus that point-of-choice prompts increase stair use, future studies should test interventions designed to increase active ascent.
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.