What interventions increase commuter cycling? A systematic review

Glenn Stewart, Nana Kwame Anokye, Subhash Pokhrel, Glenn Stewart, Nana Kwame Anokye, Subhash Pokhrel

Abstract

Objective: To identify interventions that will increase commuter cycling.

Setting: All settings where commuter cycling might take place.

Participants: Adults (aged 18+) in any country.

Interventions: Individual, group or environmental interventions including policies and infrastructure.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: A wide range of 'changes in commuter cycling' indicators, including frequency of cycling, change in workforce commuting mode, change in commuting population transport mode, use of infrastructure by defined populations and population modal shift.

Results: 12 studies from 6 countries (6 from the UK, 2 from Australia, 1 each from Sweden, Ireland, New Zealand and the USA) met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 2 studies were randomised control trials and the remainder preintervention and postintervention studies. The majority of studies (n=7) evaluated individual-based or group-based interventions and the rest environmental interventions. Individual-based or group-based interventions in 6/7 studies were found to increase commuter cycling of which the effect was significant in only 3/6 studies. Environmental interventions, however, had small but positive effects in much larger but more difficult to define populations. Almost all studies had substantial loss to follow-up.

Conclusions: Despite commuter cycling prevalence varying widely between countries, robust evidence of what interventions will increase commuter cycling in low cycling prevalence nations is sparse. Wider environmental interventions that make cycling conducive appear to reach out to hard to define but larger populations. This could mean that environmental interventions, despite their small positive effects, have greater public health significance than individual-based or group-based measures because those interventions encourage a larger number of people to integrate physical activity into their everyday lives.

Keywords: Physical activity; commuter cycling; health benefits; lifestyle.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram of the study identification and inclusion process (Digital Dissert, Digital Dissertations).

References

    1. Das P, Horton R. Rethinking our approach to physical activity. Lancet 2012;380:189–90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61024-1
    1. Kohl HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV et al. . The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet 2012;380:294–305. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8
    1. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F et al. . Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012;380:219–29. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
    1. Department of Health. Start Active, Stay Active. A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers 2011.
    1. National Health Service. Five Year Forward plan 2014.
    1. IHRSA. Physical Activity Guidelines International.
    1. Hallal PC, Bauman AE, Heath GW et al. . Physical activity: more of the same is not enough. Lancet 2012;380:190–1. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61027-7
    1. Foster C, Hillsdon M. Changing the environment to promote health-enhancing physical activity. J Sports Sci 2004;22:755–69. 10.1080/02640410410001712458
    1. Reynolds R, McKenzie S, Allender S et al. . Systematic review of incidental physical activity community interventions. Prev Med 2014;67:46–64. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.023
    1. Hosking J, Macmillan A, Connor J et al. . Organisational travel plans for improving health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;3:CD005575.
    1. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census Analysis—Distance Travelled to Work, 2014.
    1. British Medical Association. Healthy Transport=Healthy Lives 2010.
    1. Oja P, Vuori I, Paronen O. Daily walking and cycling to work: their utility as health-enhancing physical activity. Patient Educ Couns 1998;33:S87–94. 10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00013-5
    1. Shephard RJ. Is active commuting the answer to population health? Sports Med 2008;38:751 10.2165/00007256-200838090-00004
    1. Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transport Rev 2008;28 10.1080/01441640701806612
    1. Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med 2010;50(Suppl 1):S106–25. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028
    1. Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V et al. . Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. BMJ 2004;329:763–6. 10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55
    1. Fraser SD, Lock K. Cycling for transport and public health: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling. Eur J Public Health 2011;21:738–43. 10.1093/eurpub/ckq145
    1. Krizek KJ, Forsyth A, Baum L. Walking and Cycling International Literature Review. Final Report 2009.
    1. Yang L, Sahlqvist S, McMinn A et al. . Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c5293 10.1136/bmj.c5293
    1. Aldred R.2014. A Matter of Utility? Rationalising Cycling, Cycling Rationalities. Mobilities. doi:10.1080/17450101.2014.935149.
    1. Mindell JS, Watkins SJ, Cohen JM. Health on the Move 2. Policies for health promoting transport Stockport: Transport and Health Study Group, 2011.
    1. Public Health England. Everybody active, every day. An evidence based approach to physical activity. Public Health England, 2014.
    1. Brunel University. Databases Webpage. Site accessed 1st November 2014.
    1. Heinen E, van Bee B, Kees M. Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transport Rev 2010;30:59–96. 10.1080/01441640903187001
    1. Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V et al. . Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:886–92. 10.1136/jech.2005.034199
    1. Centre for Review and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health care 2009.
    1. NICE. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition): Appendix F Quality Appraisal Checklist—quantitative intervention studies. 3rd edn. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2012.
    1. Hemmingsson E, Uddén J, Neovius M et al. . Increased physical activity in abdominally obese women through support for changed commuting habits: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Obes 2009;33:645–52. 10.1038/ijo.2009.77
    1. Goodman A, Panter J, Sharp SJ et al. . Effectiveness and equity impacts of town-wide cycling initiatives in England: a longitudinal, controlled natural experimental study. Soc Sci Med 2013;97: 228–37. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.030
    1. Mutrie N, Carney C, Blamey A et al. . “Walk in to Work Out”: a randomised controlled trial of a self help intervention to promote active commuting. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:407–12. 10.1136/jech.56.6.407
    1. Goodman A, Sahlqvist S, Ogilvie D. Who uses new walking and cycling infrastructure and how? Longitudinal results from the UK iConnect study. Prev Med 2013;57:518–24. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.07.007
    1. Brockman R, Fox KR. Physical activity by stealth? The potential health benefits of a workplace transport plan. Public Health 2011;125:210–16. 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.01.005
    1. Rose G, Marfurt H. Travel behaviour change impacts of a major ride to work day event. Transportation Res Part A 2007;41:351–64.
    1. O'Fallon C. Bike Now: Exploring methods of building sustained participation in cycle commuting in New Zealand. Road and Transport Research 2010;19(2) 10.1016/j.jsams.2005.06.001
    1. Telfer B, Rissel C, Bindon J et al. . Encouraging cycling through a pilot cycling proficiency training program among adults in central Sydney. J Sci Med Sport 2006;9:151–6. 10.1016/j.jsams.2005.06.001
    1. Johnson R, Margolis S. A review of the effectiveness of adult cycle training in Tower Hamlets, London. Transport Policy 2013;30:254–61. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.005
    1. McCartney G, Whyte B, Livingston M et al. . Building a bridge, transport infrastructure and population characteristics: explaining active travel into Glasgow. Transport Policy 2012;21:119–25. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.03.003
    1. Caulfield B. Re-cycling a city—examining the growth of cycling in Dublin. Transportation Res Part A 2014;61:216–226.
    1. Krizek K, Barnes G, Thompson K. Analyzing the effect of bicycle facilities on commute mode share over time. J Urban Plann Dev 2009;135:66–73.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:2(66)
    1. Petticrew M, Cummins S, Ferrella C et al. . Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health? Public Health 2005;119:751–7. 10.1016/j.puhe.2004.11.008
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Walking and cycling: local measures to promote walking and cycling as forms of travel or recreation 2012.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj