ArticleBMC psychology2025
Reasons for cycling and well-being levels of cycling individuals.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to examine the reasons for cycling and well-being levels of individuals who ride bicycles.
methodThis study was conducted using a screening model with 230 participants, with approval from the Dicle University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee. Data were collected using the Well-Being Scale and Koçak's Reasons for Cycling Questionnaire, and analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics and parametric tests were applied for normally distributed data; groups were compared using the Independent Samples T-Test and ANOVA, with Tukey post-hoc tests for significant differences. Additionally, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between reasons for cycling and psychological well-being, and simple linear regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive effect of reasons for cycling on psychological well-being.
resultsAccording to the research findings, no significant difference was found based on gender, income level, or duration of bicycle use. However, in terms of marital status, married individuals were found to have higher psychological well-being levels than single individuals. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of age, with participants aged 39 and above having higher well-being levels than those aged 18-28 and 29-38 age range. Analysis based on the education level variable revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups. According to the Tukey test results, university graduates were found to have higher levels of well-being than middle school graduates. In terms of employment status, public employees were found to have higher well-being levels than unemployed individuals. Furthermore, a positive and statistically significant correlation was found between the total score for reasons for cycling and psychological well-being (r = .244, p < .000). Simple linear regression analysis revealed that the total score for reasons for cycling is a significant predictor of psychological well-being (R² = 0.059, F(14, 380) = 15.485, p < .000). Accordingly, each unit increase in the total score for reasons for cycling corresponded to a 0.178 unit increase in psychological well-being (B = 0.178, β = 0.244, t = 3.792, p < .000).
conclusionAs a result of this study, it was concluded that the participants used bicycles mostly for travelling and relaxation. It was observed that individuals who used bicycles for these purposes also had high levels of well-being.
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.