Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526041›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

How equitable are the distributions of the physical activity and accessibility benefits of bicycle infrastructure?

Christopher Standen, Melanie Crane, Stephen Greaves, Andrew T Collins, Chris Rissel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Christopher StandenCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, School of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia. c.standen@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8027-6773
Melanie CraneSydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Stephen GreavesInstitute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Andrew T CollinsInstitute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Chris RisselSydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCycling for transport provides many health and social benefits - including physical activity and independent access to jobs, education, social opportunities, health care and other services (accessibility). However, some population groups have less opportunity to reach everyday destinations, and public transport stops, by bicycle - owing in part to their greater aversion to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Health equity can therefore be improved by providing separated cycleway networks that give more people the opportunity to access places by bicycle using traffic-free routes. The aim of this study was to assess the health equity benefits of two bicycle infrastructure development scenarios - a single cycleway, and a complete network of cycleways - by examining the distributions of physical activity and accessibility benefits across gender, age and income groups.

methodsTravel survey data collected from residents in Sydney (Australia) were used to train a predictive transport mode choice model, which was then used to forecast the impact of the two intervention scenarios on transport mode choice, physical activity and accessibility. The latter was measured using a utility-based measure derived from the mode choice model. The distributions of the forecast physical activity and accessibility benefits were then calculated across gender, age and income groups.

resultsThe modelled physical activity and accessibility measures improve in both intervention scenarios. However, in the single cycleway scenario, the benefits are greatest for the male, high-income and older age groups. In the complete network scenario, the benefits are more equally distributed. Forecast increases in cycling time are largely offset by decreases in walking time - though the latter is typically low-intensity physical activity, which confers a lesser health benefit than moderate-intensity cycling.

conclusionsSeparated cycleway infrastructure can be used to improve health equity by providing greater opportunities for transport cycling in population groups more averse to riding amongst motor vehicle traffic. Disparities in the opportunity to access services and economic/social activities by bicycle - and incorporate more physical activity into everyday travel - could be addressed with connected, traffic-free cycleway networks that cater to people of all genders, ages and incomes.

Indexed as

BicyclingEnvironment DesignExerciseHealth EquityAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansIncomeMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultAccessibilityBicycleHealth equityPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID34526041
PMCPMC8444547

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.