Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42601096›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Scoping review of public attitudes to government active travel interventions in the UK.

Nick Morris, Russell Jago, Helen P Russell, Ruth Salway, Kelly Morgan, Ruth Kipping

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Nick MorrisCentre for Public Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK n.j.morris@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6028-2919
Russell JagoCentre for Public Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3394-0176
Helen P RussellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0988-6779
Ruth SalwayCentre for Public Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3242-3951
Kelly MorganCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social and Spatial Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8685-1177
Ruth KippingCentre for Public Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLow physical activity levels are a public health concern. Active travel is a potential strategy to increase routine walking, wheeling and cycling across populations. However, governments in the UK have not yet achieved their active travel targets and gaining public acceptance for interventions can be challenging. To inform future policymaking, this review aims to synthesise evidence on public attitudes to active travel interventions in the UK.

designA systematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Six sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Transport Research International Documentation) supplemented with a focused Google Scholar search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed evidence in English from 1999 to 2025 using any methods to analyse public attitudes to active travel interventions in any part of the UK. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After screening titles and abstracts, and then full-text review, we extracted data relevant to the research question. We produced descriptive statistics about the publications and narrative synthesis of public attitude themes, particularly how attitudes are formed and vary, and their role in policymaking.

resultsWe included 26 publications after screening 13 778 records. Publications were mostly published after 2021 (n=14). Physical changes to street design were the most common intervention type (n=16). Populations of interest included residents, commuters, schoolchildren and others exposed to local interventions. There was little focus on rural areas and generally limited longer-term, sustained data collection. Results suggest active travel was positively viewed overall but intervention delivery was challenging. How the public perceives intervention effectiveness and fairness were important but perceptions varied by public beliefs, characteristics and travel habits. Several policymaking and practice challenges were identified, including the complexities of gauging public consensus about interventions, underlying public cynicism and a widespread desire among drivers to maintain driving habits.

conclusionsActive travel interventions can be difficult to plan and implement due to public attitudes. Public engagement is an important part of any active travel interventions. There was a lack of evidence identified about the specific, practical strategies that policymakers can use to address engagement challenges. Further research is required to explore these issues to help tackle low levels of physical activity through active travel. However, this review provides some insight for policymakers about key public attitude considerations at any stage of designing and delivering active travel interventions.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionPublic OpinionTravelBicyclingHumansPublic HealthUnited KingdomWalkingAttitudeBehaviorPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID42601096
PMCPMC13479531

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.