ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019
Public employees in South-Western Norway using an e-bike or a regular bike for commuting - A cross-sectional comparison on sociodemographic factors, commuting frequency and commuting distance.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 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.
- The self-selected intensity of physical activity during real-life e-bike commuting.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review.Journal of transport & health · 2020Article
- Correlates of Commuter Cycling in Three Norwegian Counties.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale analyses on the travel behavior of e-bikes are scarce, and current knowledge regarding who the e-bike owners are is inconsistent. Also, commuters represent a relevant user group with an unexploited potential. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine (i) associations between type of bike (e-bike vs. regular bike) with place of residence (county), sociodemographic variables (age, sex, educational level, income and ethnicity) and habitual physical activity level, and (ii) if public employees possessing an e-bike cycle more often and longer distances to work. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2017 among 1977 (5.2% of eligible subjects) public employees in Southern and Western Norway. Binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. Respondents possessing an e-bike were less likely to perform high levels of leisure time physical activity (OR 0.56 (CI 0.39-0.82)), compared to those possessing a regular bike only. For those residing in Agder, the likelihood of possessing an e-bike (vs. regular bike) was almost 4 times higher (OR 3.98 (CI 2.53-6.26)), compared with participants residing in Sogn og Fjordane. Compared with those possessing a regular bike only, e-bike users cycled more frequently to work, both occasionally (OR 3.71 (CI 2.44-5.65)) and most of the time (OR 4.28 (CI 2.79-6.55)), and they had higher odds of cycling medium distances to the workplace (OR 1.74 (CI 1.04-2.90)). In conclusion, e-bike access could result in increased commuter cycling, both in terms of cycling frequency and cycling distance, which in turn could contribute to enhanced physical activity levels.
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.