Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37069843›Full record

ArticleJournal of transport & health2023

Safe streets for some: A review of local active transportation responses across the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Matthew D Dean, Kaelin A Amaya, Jennifer Hall, Kalinda Marie Gupta, Rachael T Panik, Jeanette Gustat, Angie L Cradock

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. 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

7 authors.

Matthew D DeanDepartment of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Kaelin A AmayaSchool of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Jennifer HallDepartment of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, E. Cockrell Jr. Hall, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Kalinda Marie GuptaSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, 1603 W. Taylor St., Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Rachael T PanikDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 790 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Jeanette GustatDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 2001, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Angie L CradockDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, 7th Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction & research objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted daily travel. This paper contrasts 51 US cities' responses, namely street reallocation criteria and messaging related to physical activity (PA) and active transportation (AT) during the early months of the pandemic. This study can be utilized by cities for aiding in the creation of locally responsive policies that acknowledge and remedy a lack of safe active transportation. Methods: A content analysis review was conducted of city orders and documents related to PA or AT for the largest city by population in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Authoritative documents issued from each city's public health declaration (ca. March 2020) to September 2020 were reviewed. The study obtained documents from two crowdsourced datasets and municipal websites. Descriptive statistics were used to compare policies and strategies, with a focus on reallocation of street space. Results: A total of 631 documents were coded. Considerable variation existed in city responses to COVID-19 that impacted PA and AT. Most cities' stay-at-home orders explicitly permitted outdoor PA (63%) and many encouraged PA (47%). As the pandemic continued, 23 cities (45%) had pilot programs that reallocated street space for non-motorized road users to recreate and travel. Most cities explicitly mentioned a rationale for the programs (e.g., to provide space for exercise (96%) and to alleviate crowding or provide safe AT routes (57%)). Cities used public feedback to guide placement decisions (35%) and several welcomed public input to adjust initial actions. Geographic equity was a criterion in 35% of programs and 57% considered inadequately sized infrastructure in decision-making. Conclusions: If cities want to emphasize AT and the health of their citizens, safe access to dedicated infrastructure needs to be prioritized. More than half of study cities did not instate new programs within the first 6 months of the pandemic. Cities should study peer responses and innovations to inform and create locally responsive policies that can acknowledge and remedy a lack of safe AT.

Indexed as

Built environment changesMunicipal ordersOpen streetsPhysical activityPolicy

Identifiers

PMID37069843
PMCPMC10060196

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.