ArticleSSM - population health2023
Equity impacts of cycling investment in England: A natural experimental study using longitudinally linked individual-level Census data.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of active travel interventions in the UK on disadvantaged population groups and their potential to reduce health inequalities: systematic review.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Pooled it
- The effectiveness of new urban trail infrastructure on physical activity and active transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natural experiments.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of bicycle infrastructure interventions on physical activity in the general population: rapid review.BMC public health · 2026Review
- Which population-level interventions promote physical activity equitably across socioeconomic groups? A rapid systematic review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.