Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497439›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Who is in the near market for bicycle sharing? Identifying current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program in Vancouver, Canada.

Kate Hosford, Scott A Lear, Daniel Fuller, Kay Teschke, Suzanne Therrien, Meghan Winters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Changes in physical activity after joining a bikeshare program: a cohort of new bikeshare users.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    Article
  3. The motivations for using bike sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from Lisbon.Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour · 2021
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Kate HosfordFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A1S6, Canada. khosford@sfu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9155-7431
Scott A LearFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A1S6, Canada.
Daniel FullerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Physical Education Building, St. John's, Newfoundland, A1C 5S7, Canada.
Kay TeschkeSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Suzanne TherrienCentre for Hip Health and Mobility, 2635 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Meghan WintersFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A1S6, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes for Health Research 120515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic bicycle share programs in many cities are used by a small segment of the population. To better understand the market for public bicycle share, this study examined the socio-demographic and transportation characteristics of current, potential, and unlikely users of a public bicycle share program and identified specific motivators and deterrents to public bicycle share use.

methodsWe used cross-sectional data from a 2017 Vancouver public bicycle share (Mobi by Shaw Go) member survey (n = 1272) and a 2017 population-based survey of Vancouver residents (n = 792). We categorized non-users from the population survey as either potential or unlikely users based on their stated interest in using public bicycle share within the next year. We used descriptive statistics to compare the demographic and transportation characteristics of current users to non-users, and multiple logistic regression to compare the profiles of potential and unlikely users.

resultsPublic bicycle share users in Vancouver tended to be male, employed, and have higher educations and incomes as compared to non-users, and were more likely to use active modes of transportation. The vast majority of non-users (74%) thought the public bicycle share program was a good idea for Vancouver. Of the non-users, 23% were identified as potential users. Potential users tended to be younger, have lower incomes, and were more likely to use public transit for their main mode of transportation, as compared to current and unlikely users. The most common motivators among potential users related to health benefits, not owning a bicycle, and stations near their home or destination. The deterrents among unlikely users were a preference for riding their own bicycle, perceived inconvenience compared to other modes, bad weather, and traffic. Cost was a deterrent to one-fifth of unlikely users, notable given they tended to have lower incomes than current users.

conclusionFindings can help inform targeted marketing and outreach to increase public bicycle share uptake in the population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBicyclingCanadaCitiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTransportationYoung AdultActive transportationBicycle shareBicyclingSocial marketing

Identifiers

PMID30497439
PMCPMC6267823

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.