Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37304734›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2023

Equity impacts of cycling investment in England: A natural experimental study using longitudinally linked individual-level Census data.

Richard Patterson, David Ogilvie, Anthony A Laverty, Jenna Panter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard PattersonMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Anthony A LavertyPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Imperial College London, Reynold Building, St Dunstan's Road, London, W6 8RP, UK.
Jenna PanterMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cycling is beneficial for health and the environment but the evidence on the overall and differential impacts of interventions to promote cycling is limited. Here we assess the equity impacts of funding awarded to support cycling in 18 urban areas between 2005 and 2011. Methods: We used longitudinally linked 2001 and 2011 census data from 25,747 individuals in the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study of England and Wales. Logistic regression was used to assess the impacts of funding on commute mode as the interaction between time and area (intervention/comparison) in individual-level difference-in-difference analyses, adjusting for a range of potential confounding factors. Differential impacts were examined by age, gender, education and area-level deprivation, and uptake and maintenance of cycling were examined separately. Results: Difference-in-difference analyses showed no intervention impact on cycle commuting prevalence in the whole sample (AOR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.92, 1.26) or among men (AOR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10) but found an intervention effect among women (AOR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.16, 2.10). The intervention promoted uptake of cycling commuting in women (AOR = 2.13; 95% CI 1.56, 2.91) but not men (AOR = 1.19; 95% CI 0.93, 1.51). Differences in intervention effects by age, education and area-level deprivation were less consistent and more modest in magnitude. Conclusions: Living in an intervention area was associated with greater uptake of cycle commuting among women but not men. Potential gender differences in the determinants of transport mode choice should be considered in the design and evaluation of future interventions to promote cycling.

Indexed as

Active travelCyclingEvaluationInterventionNatural experiment

Identifiers

PMID37304734
PMCPMC10251149
OpenAlexW4378974407

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.