ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019
Evaluation of free-floating bike-share on a university campus using a multi-method approach.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlates of bike share use and its association with weight status at an urban university.PloS one · 2022Article
- Socio-Ecological Predictors of Frequent Bike Share Trips: Do Purposes Matter?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bike-sharing, especially free-floating bike-share, has tremendous potential for increasing active transport on a college campus. Increased bike use improves public health, reduces pollution, and solves traffic congestion problems. Like other innovations, free-floating bikeshare proceeds through various stages while disseminated and before being widely adopted and accepted. A multi-method study using quantitative bike usage data, a cross-sectional survey, and focus group discussions was used to evaluate the Spring 2018 launch of a free-floating bike-share program at a large public university. Three months after implementation, there were 19,504 registered users, 24,371 different riders, 165,854 rides, and 85,778 miles traveled. The average trip length was 0.52 miles and lasted 8.3 min. Survey data from 2845 students, faculty, and staff revealed that 33.6% had used the bikes. Bike users were more likely to be students, freshmen, living on campus, be a current biker, and have confidence in their biking ability. Focus groups revealed that safety was a concern, knowledge about how the program worked was low among non-users and faculty and staff, cost was a barrier, and that adherence to bike-share rules needed to be improved. A large segment of the university population quickly adopted free-floating bike-share. However, continued work needs to be done to enhance safety, provide clear guidelines on bike-share rules (e.g., bike parking), and increase knowledge of the program with a specific focus on use by faculty and staff to ensure continued success and ultimately improve health.
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.