ReviewJournal of transport & health2020
Could smart research ensure healthy people in disrupted cities?
Review in Journal of transport & health, 2020. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- What are the lessons from COVID-19 for creating healthy, sustainable, resilient future cities?npj urban sustainability · 2023Review
- Determining thresholds for spatial urban design and transport features that support walking to create healthy and sustainable cities: findings from the IPEN Adult study.The Lancet. Global health · 2022Review
- Heart healthy cities: genetics loads the gun but the environment pulls the trigger.European heart journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the late 19th century, city planners have struggled to cope with new types of urban transport and mobility that threatened the existing system, or even rendered it obsolete. PURPOSE: As city planners confront the range of disruptive urban mobilities currently on the horizon, this paper explores how we can draw on a vast body of evidence to anticipate and avoid unintended consequences to people's health and wellbeing
methodsThis commentary involved a rapid review of the literature on transport disruption.
resultsWe found that to avoid the unintended consequences of disruption, research, policy and practice must think beyond single issues (such as the risk of chronic disease, injury, or traffic management) and consider the broader consequences of interventions. For example, although autonomous vehicles will probably reduce road trauma, what will be the negative consequences for physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, chronic disease, land use, traffic congestion and commuting patterns? Research is needed that considers and informs how to mitigate the range of potential harms caused by disruptive mobilities.
conclusionIn the face of new disruptive mobilities, we must: (a) draw on existing evidence to shape new regulations that address the 'who, when and where' rules of introducing new mobilities (such as electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) and scooters (e-scooters)) of which the health repercussions can be easily anticipated; (b) monitor and evaluate the implementation of any interventions through natural experiment studies; and (c) use innovative research methods (such as agent-based simulation and health-impact-assessment modelling) to assess the likely effects of emerging disruptive mobilities (e.g., autonomous vehicles) on health and wellbeing and on the environment.
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.