Table 7 Results of studies included in comparison 1.2: Active transport interventions
Study ID Study design (Country) | Comparison | Participants at baseline (n) | Outcome measure reported | Intervention | Control | Effect measure reported | Effect direction | Time of outcome measure | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline value | Follow-up | Baseline value | Follow-up | |||||||
Primary outcome: Physical activity | ||||||||||
1. Brown 2016 [60] CBA (USA) | Participants living near (within 800 m) of the intervention street. those living far from intervention street Street improvements included new bike lanes, wider and better lit sidewalks | 910 residents | Transit-related active transportation trips | proportion 0.21, SD = 0.41 | prop = 0.39 | prop = 0.15, SD = 0.35 | 0.25 | OR = 1.48; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.68, p = 0.01 | ▲ | 1 year |
2. Østergaard 2015 [55] CBA (Denmark) | Physical environment changes plus 'soft' interventions (motivation and safety encouragement) vs. no intervention Interventions to increase cycling: structural changes near the school in e.g. road surface, signposting and traffic regulation such as one-way streets and regulation of car drop off zones" | PA from cycling (number of trips to and from school in previous week) | mean (SD) 5.8 (4.4) | NR | mean (SD) 6.4 (4.3) | NR | Change beta coefficient: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.54; p-value = 0.463 | △ | 1 year | |
3. Benjamin Neelon 2015 [61] CBA (USA) | Built environment changes including new sidewalks and crosswalks vs. no intervention | Intervention – 64 children; Control – 40 children | MVPA (min/hr) | Mean (SD 4.0 (1.7) | Mean (SD) 4.2, (1.9) | Mean (SD) 3.8 (2.0) | Mean (SD) 3.4 (1.5) | Regression coefficient: 1.3; 95% CI: 0.2 to 2.3; p-value = 0.03 | ▲ | 1 year |
4. Dill 2014 [65] CBA (USA) | Installation of bicycle boulevards vs. no installation | 255 parents living at 8 intervention and 11 control street segments | Minutes of MVPA per day | Mean (SD) 39.5 (21.9) | Mean (SD) 35.6 (19.0) | Mean (SD) 35.4 (20.8) | Mean (SD) 34.8 (19.4) | beta-coefficient: − 3.44 p-value = 0.33 | ▽ | 1 year |
5. Frank 2019 [64] CBA (Canada) | Proximity to infrastructure changes (greenway development); close vs. further away | Intervention – 219 residents; Control – 265 residents | MVPA (proportion engaging in > 20 min/day) | 67.6% (95% CI 61.3, 73.8) | 69.4% (95% CI = 63.3, 75.6 | 68.7% (95% CI 63.1, 74.3) | 60.8% (95% CI = 54.8, 66.7) | OR 2.00 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.98 | △ | 1 year? |
6. Hong 2016 [66] CBA (USA) | New light rail line; treatment group (residing < ½ mile) vs. control group (> ½ mile) | Intervention – 32 residents; Control – 41 residents of an urban area | Average minutes of daily MVPA | Mean (SD) 23.09 (17.49) | Mean (SD) 21.52 (16.24) | Mean (SD) 19.81 (18.01) | Mean (SD) 18.56 (17.02) | Coefficient = -0.34 p = 0.063* | △ | 1 year |
7. West 2011 [68] CBA (USA) | Living near (within .5 miles) vs. far (within .51–1.0 miles) to new greenway construction | Intervention – 93 residents; Control – 73 residents | moderate PA (number of days/week) | Mean (SD) 1.76 (1.99) | Mean (SD) 2.39 (1.93) 0.63 | mean = 1.63; SD = 1.81 | mean = 2.11; SD = 1.91 | "Wilks’s Lambda = .997, F(1, 165) = . 509", P < 0.476 | △ | 1 year |
8. Chapman 2014 [70] CBA New Zealand | "the introduction of cycle and walkway infrastructure, along with measures to encourage active travel" vs. no intervention | 4861 trips | Proportion engaged in active travel | 19.7% (n = 111) (unadjusted) | 17.8% (n = 151) (unadjusted) | 19.4% (n = 131) (unadjusted) | 15.0% (n = 132) (unadjusted) | OR 1.37 (1.08 to 1.73) | ▲ | 1 year |
9. Rissel 2015 [58] CBA (Australia) | building cycling infrastructure vs. no intervention | Intervention – 398 adult residents; Control – 448 adult residents | MVPA (min/week) | Mean (SD) 239.5 (274.5); n = 398 | Mean (SD) 204.0 (252.9); n = 189)" | Mean (SD) 211.1 (229.6); n = 448" | Mean (SD) 180.5 (197.6); n = 229" | DID = -4.9 [calculated] | ▽ | 16 months |
10. Fitzhugh 2010 [57] CBA (USA) | Building greenway/trail vs. no intervention | Intervention – 1 neighbourhood; Control – 2 neighbourhoods | 2-h counts of total PA | Median: 4.5 (IQR: 3.0–6.0) | Median: 13.0 (IQR: 11.0–15.0) | Median: 3.0 (IQR: 0.0–8.0) | Median: 1.0 (IQR: 0.0—6.0) | NR, p = 0.001 “… the experimental neighborhoods’ change in physical activity was found to be significantly different from the control neighborhoods’ for pedestrian (p = 0.001); cycling (p = 0.038); and total physical activity (p = 0.001)” | ▲ | 2 years |
11. Pazin 2016 [69] CBA (Brazil) | living nearer (0-500 m) vs. farther away (501–1000) from new walking and cycling route | Intervention – 192 adults; Control – 137 adults from 6 urban neighborhoods | MVPA + walking in previous week (min/week) | Mean (95% CI): 107 (90 to 124) | Mean (95% CI): 158 (130 to 187) | Mean (95% CI): 149 (105 to 193) | Mean (95% CI): 128 (99 to 156) | NR Naïve DID = 72 | △ | 3 years |
12. Skov-Petersen 2017 [42] ITS (Denmark) | cycle highways (Albertslund) upgrade vs. no upgrade | 50,954 counts | Bike volume (cyclists/hr) | NR | NR | NR | NR | Beta: 0.95 error: 0.89 p = 0.2858 | △ | Over 35 months |
cycle greenway upgrade (Vestvolden) vs. no upgrade | NR | NR | NR | NR | Beta: 3.15, error: 1.11, p = 0,0046 | ▲ | ||||
13. Grunseit 2019 [40] ITS (Australia) | Trends before and after the construction of multi-use recreational walking and cycling loop trail | All cyclists riding on two trails | Trail use (immediate effect): Counts of bike passes (at Jamieson park) | NR | NR | NR | NR | adj beta 189,995% CI 1672, 2126 | ▲ | 120 time points "19 weeks February 25th to July 14th (weeks 9 to 28) for each year 2013, 2014 and 2015" |
Trend in trail use: for bikes (Jamieson park) effect over time | NR | NR | NR | NR | adj beta -6295% CI -80 to -44 | ▼ | ||||
14. McDonald 2013 [62] CBA USA | Schools with SRTS* programme (education + covered bike parking) vs. schools with no SRTS programs | Intervention Schools—9; control schools—5 | proportion biking | NR | NR | NR | NR | marginal effect: 0.106; 95% CI: 0.018 to 0.195 | ▲ | 5 years |
Schools with SRTS programme (education + Sidewalks/crosswalks) vs. schools with no SRTS programs | proportion walking | NR | NR | NR | NR | Marginal effect: 0.064; 95% CI: -0.002 to 0.130 | △ | |||
15. Prins 2017 [63]_CBA analysis | new motorway vs. no motorway | 1412 adults from two urban areas | Proportion participation in MVPA | 65.5% (n = 220) | 71.9% (n = 231) | 62% (n = 234) | 68.5% (n = 254) | OR: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.72) | ▽ | 8 years |
16. Goodman 2013 [56] CBA (UK) | Town-level cycling initiative (infrastructure and health promotion) vs. Matched comparison | Intervention – 37 urban census areas; Control – 27 urban census areas | Proportion of commuters cycling to work | 5.81%; (5.77; 5.86) | 6.78%; (6.74; 6.83) | 4.03% (3.99; 4.08) | 4.32%; (4.28; 4.36)" | coefficient: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.60; 0.77 | ▲ | 10 years |
17. Hirsch 2017 [67] CBA study (USA) | Before vs. after infrastructure changes for those near (25th percentile/1.08 km) the infrastructure changes (construction of an off-road trail system) | 116 census tracts (population differed at different timepoints) | Proportion commuting to work by bicycle | mean (sd)1.76% (1.96%) | mean (sd)4.04% (3.48%) | NR | NR | coefficient 2.03; 95% CI (0.13; 3.93) | ▲ | 10 years |
Primary outcome: Body weight and related measures | ||||||||||
1. Østergaard 2015 [55] CBA (Denmark) | Physical environment change plus 'soft' interventions (motivation and safety encouragement) vs. no intervention | 1390 children | Change in BMI | Mean (SD) 18.24 (2.93) | NR | Mean (SD) 18.23 (2.84) | NR | beta coefficient: 0.01; 95% CI: (-0.13; 0.15); p-value: 0.887 | ▽ | 1 year |
2. Benjamin Neelon 2015 [61] CBA (USA) | Active transport vs. no intervention | 104 children; Intervention –64; Control – 40 | BMI Z-score | Mean (SD) 0.6 (1.2) | NR | Mean (SD) 1.2 (1.2) | NR | Regression Coefficient: -0.5; 95% CI = -0.9 to -0.02; p-value = 0.045 | ▲ | 1 year |
Secondary outcome: Satisfaction | ||||||||||
1. Jung 2017 [59] CBA | Design street project (including the improvement of sidewalks, public spaces, signs, fences, and other physical elements of the streets) vs. typical street | Intervention – 2016 pedestrians; Control – 15,686 pedestrians | Pedestrian satisfaction score | 3.213 | 3.355 | 3.256 | 3.092 | coefficient = 0.291; (SE = 1.31), p < 0.05 | ▲ | 3 years |
Secondary outcome: Adverse event—injuries | ||||||||||
1. Østergaard 2015 [55] CBA | Physical environment change plus 'soft' interventions (motivation and safety encouragement) vs. no intervention | 1684 children; Intervention –897; Control – 641) | Cycling injuries frequency | 193 | 184 | 147 | 137 | NR Naïve DID = 1 | ▽ | 1 year |
Secondary outcome: Adverse events—Mental health | ||||||||||
1. Prins 2017 [63]_CBA analysis | Construction of a new motorway (also hypothesized to remove traffic from local streets and create a more pedestrian- and cycle-friendly environment) vs.no motorway | 1778 adults from two urban areas | Mental well-being (MCS-8 score) | NR | NR | NR | NR | Regression coefficient: -0.8; 95% CI: –3.1 to 1.5 | ▽ | 8 years |