ArticleHRB open research2025
Cycling among people experiencing socio-economic disadvantage: a scoping review protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cycling among people experiencing socio-economic disadvantage: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Active mobility, such as walking, wheeling, and cycling, is a low-carbon transport mode and a source of physical activity. Cycling, as a form of active mobility, is associated with physical and mental health benefits, transport cost savings, and improved air quality. During the transition to sustainable mobility, equitable outcomes depend on opportunities for active mobility reaching across our societies. This review will chart what is currently known about cycling among people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Objective: To conduct a scoping review to understand the extent and type of evidence reporting utility cycling (i.e., cycling for transport) among people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Inclusion criteria: This review will include studies involving adult participants who are described as experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Studies will be included if the focus/objective relates to utility cycling and the study reports cycling experiences, purposes, barriers, enablers, frequencies, perceptions, correlates, determinants, impacts, and/or interventions. Primary research using a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method design will be considered. Relevant peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, dissertations/theses, and preprints will be included. Methods: The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance for scoping reviews. A search strategy that includes key terms and subject headings was developed and translated for use across the following databases: PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost), SPORTDiscus (via EBSCOhost), CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (via Web of Science), Europe PMC (preprints), and OpenAlex (preprints). Database search results will be collated in Zotero and uploaded to Covidence for study selection. Titles, abstracts, and subsequent full texts will be independently screened by two reviewers. Data will be extracted from the included studies using a data-extraction tool. Data will be synthesized in two stages: (1) charting the data and (2) descriptive qualitative content analysis.
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.