Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31301599›Full record

SynthesisHealth & place2019

Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.

Jenna Panter, Cornelia Guell, David Humphreys, David Ogilvie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health & place, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Impacts of built environment changes on physical activity in Canada: a systematic review of natural experiments.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. The impact of interventions in the built environment on physical activity levels: a systematic umbrella review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Shaping Pathways to Child Health: A Systematic Review of Street-Scale Interventions in City Streets.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Understanding how and why travel mode changes: analysis of longitudinal qualitative interviews.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Jenna PanterMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Centre for Diet & Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: jenna.panter@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Cornelia GuellEuropean Centre for Environment & Human Health, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
David HumphreysDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Centre for Diet & Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2012-05-157Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council U106179474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental changes aimed at encouraging walking or cycling may promote activity and improve health, but evidence suggests small or inconsistent effects in practice. Understanding how an intervention works might help explain the effects observed and provide guidance about generalisability. We therefore aimed to review the literature on the effects of this type of intervention and to understand how and why these may or may not be effective. We searched eight electronic databases for existing systematic reviews and mined these for evaluative studies of physical environmental changes and assessed changes in walking, cycling or physical activity. We then searched for related sources including quantitative or qualitative studies, policy documents or reports. We extracted information on the evidence for effects ('estimation'), contexts and mechanisms ('explanation') and assessed credibility, and synthesised material narratively. We identified 13 evaluations of interventions specifically targeting walking and cycling and used 46 related sources. 70% (n = 9 evaluations) scored 3 or less on the credibility criteria for effectiveness. 6 reported significant positive effects, but higher quality evaluations were more likely to report positive effects. Only two studies provided rich evidence of mechanisms. We identified three common resources that interventions provide to promote walking and cycling: (i) improving accessibility and connectivity; (ii) improving traffic and personal safety; and (iii) improving the experience of walking and cycling. The most effective interventions appeared to target accessibility and safety in both supportive and unsupportive contexts. Although the evidence base was relatively limited, we were able to understand the role of context in the success of interventions. Researchers and policy makers should consider the context and mechanisms which might operate before evaluating and implementing interventions.

Indexed as

BicyclingEnvironment DesignWalkingHealth BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansCausalityEnvironmentEvaluationInterventionPhysical activitySystematic reviewUrban design

Identifiers

PMID31301599
PMCPMC6737987

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.