The value of cycleways to improve population physical activity levels: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Luiz F Andrade, Bisola Osifowora, Emma Frew
{"title":"The value of cycleways to improve population physical activity levels: a systematic review of economic evaluations.","authors":"Luiz F Andrade, Bisola Osifowora, Emma Frew","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2542289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Active travel (AT), particularly cycling, is increasingly recognized as a public health strategy to promote physical activity and prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Given the substantial investments required to build cycling infrastructure, economic evaluations are essential to inform policy and efficient funding decisions. This systematic review aims to identify and assess economic evaluations of cycleway infrastructure, with particular emphasis on the methodological approaches employed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using databases including PubMed, EconLit, Business Source Premier, CINAHL Plus, and MEDLINE. Eligible studies focused on cycling-specific infrastructure, reported both costs and benefits, and included a comparator. Data were extracted on evaluation type, costs, benefits, perspective, and time horizon. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist, and findings were synthesized narratively, following PRISMA guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, using cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. Interventions ranged from single cycle tracks to complex networks. Most studies were hypothetical and relied on secondary data and modeling assumptions. All reported positive economic returns. Equity impacts were rarely considered, and substantial methodological variability was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cycling infrastructure appears to demonstrate economic value for society. However, methodological inconsistencies and data limitations remain considerable and limit comparability and generalizability of findings.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO Protocol:(CRD420251005334).</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1183-1194"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2542289","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Active travel (AT), particularly cycling, is increasingly recognized as a public health strategy to promote physical activity and prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Given the substantial investments required to build cycling infrastructure, economic evaluations are essential to inform policy and efficient funding decisions. This systematic review aims to identify and assess economic evaluations of cycleway infrastructure, with particular emphasis on the methodological approaches employed.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using databases including PubMed, EconLit, Business Source Premier, CINAHL Plus, and MEDLINE. Eligible studies focused on cycling-specific infrastructure, reported both costs and benefits, and included a comparator. Data were extracted on evaluation type, costs, benefits, perspective, and time horizon. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist, and findings were synthesized narratively, following PRISMA guidelines.

Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, using cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. Interventions ranged from single cycle tracks to complex networks. Most studies were hypothetical and relied on secondary data and modeling assumptions. All reported positive economic returns. Equity impacts were rarely considered, and substantial methodological variability was observed.

Conclusion: Cycling infrastructure appears to demonstrate economic value for society. However, methodological inconsistencies and data limitations remain considerable and limit comparability and generalizability of findings.

Registration: PROSPERO Protocol:(CRD420251005334).

自行车道对提高人口体育活动水平的价值:经济评估的系统回顾。
背景:主动旅行(AT),特别是骑自行车,越来越被认为是一种促进身体活动和预防非传染性疾病(NCDs)的公共卫生战略。考虑到建设自行车基础设施需要大量投资,经济评估对于为政策和有效的融资决策提供信息至关重要。本系统综述旨在确定和评估自行车道基础设施的经济评价,特别强调所采用的方法方法。方法:使用PubMed、EconLit、Business Source Premier、CINAHL Plus和MEDLINE等数据库进行系统评价。合格的研究侧重于特定的自行车基础设施,报告成本和收益,并包括一个比较国。从评估类型、成本、收益、前景和时间范围等方面提取数据。使用Drummond检查表评估研究质量,并根据PRISMA指南对研究结果进行综合叙述。结果:8项研究符合纳入标准,采用成本效益分析或成本效益分析。干预措施从单一的循环轨道到复杂的网络。大多数研究都是假设性的,依赖于二手数据和建模假设。它们都报告了积极的经济回报。很少考虑公平影响,并且观察到大量的方法差异。结论:自行车基础设施似乎显示出对社会的经济价值。然而,方法上的不一致性和数据的局限性仍然相当大,限制了研究结果的可比性和概括性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信