Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36510600›Full record

ArticleJournal of transport & health2023

Mixed method assessment of built environment and policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by United States municipalities focusing on walking and bicycling actions.

Kelly R Evenson, Rebecca B Naumann, Nandi L Taylor, Seth LaJeunesse, Tabitha S Combs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of transport & health, 2023. 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. Review
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.

Kelly R EvensonDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Rebecca B NaumannDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Nandi L TaylorDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Seth LaJeunesseHighway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Tabitha S CombsDepartment of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted community officials to initiate local level environmental and policy changes to slow the spread of infection and provide more opportunities for outdoor recreation. Changes in both regards could positively or negatively impact walking and bicycling. Using a mixed methods approach, the purpose of this United States-based study was to systematically describe municipal response to the pandemic at the community level through environmental and policy changes that may have impacted walking and bicycling. Methods: Websites of all United States' municipalities with a residential population of at least 100,000 (n = 314) were searched to identify environmental and policy changes that might impact walking/bicycling as a result of the pandemic. When actions were identified, we systematically abstracted information from the websites. To provide more contextual information, we interviewed representatives from 12 municipalities about changes made at the municipal level as a result of the pandemic that could impact walking and bicycling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes. Results: For the 314 municipalities, we identified 353 actions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic that may impact walking and bicycling. Approximately double the number of actions were identified in large-size municipalities (234 actions in 157 municipalities with population≥165,000) compared to mid-size municipalities (119 actions among 157 municipalities with population 100,000 to 164,999). Generally, fewer actions that might suppress walking and bicycling (n = 59) were identified in comparison to actions that would likely facilitate walking and bicycling (n = 294). In-depth interviews provided further context and insight into these results. Conclusion: This mixed-method assessment provides an overview of the environmental and policy changes which may impact walking and bicycling that municipalities implemented in 2020 due to the pandemic. A next step in this line of inquiry is to quantify the impact of these changes on population levels of walking and bicycling and related health and safety outcomes.

Indexed as

Environmental changesOpen streetsPandemicPhysical activityPolicyQualitativeShared streets

Identifiers

PMID36510600
PMCPMC9729651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.