增加积极出行的干预措施:系统回顾

IF 3.2 3区 工程技术 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Eleanor Roaf , Harriet Larrington-Spencer , Emma R. Lawlor
{"title":"增加积极出行的干预措施:系统回顾","authors":"Eleanor Roaf ,&nbsp;Harriet Larrington-Spencer ,&nbsp;Emma R. Lawlor","doi":"10.1016/j.jth.2024.101860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Active travel is beneficial to human and planetary health. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on interventions aiming to promote active travel.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Studies that included an intervention aiming at increasing active travel with pre- and post-intervention measurement of active travel levels were identified through searches of seven databases, with methodological quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 3895 studies (3934 papers) identified, 78 were eligible for inclusion and synthesised narratively within five categories: studies relating to children (n = 10), social/behavioural/policy interventions (n = 18), interventions offering access to/subsidies for bicycles (n = 16), interventions including infrastructure/environmental change without other interventions (n = 20) and those that included multicomponent interventions (n = 14). Most studies (72/78) had a medium or high risk of bias often due to small sample sizes or high participant loss at follow-up. Multicomponent interventions had the highest impact on active travel levels. Interventions that only included social/behavioural/policy elements generally had little impact and had to be repeated/sustained for any impact to be maintained. Increasing the walkability of an area increases walking rates, but small-scale cycling infrastructure improvements without other supportive measures often leads to route substitution rather than an increase in cycling rates. E-bike loans increased active travel and reduced car use, at least in the short term. In studies targeting children, walking buses/cycle trains showed positive impacts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Interventions combining infrastructure change with behavioural/social programmes, interventions involving e-bikes, and cycle-sharing schemes had most impact on active travel levels. Policy makers and planners should ensure that interventions that <em>only</em> address behavioural or social aspects of active travel have long- not short-term funding. If population level change is to be achieved, such interventions should also be accompanied by environmental and infrastructure changes, including road space reallocation and access to e-bikes. This requires political buy-in and public engagement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Transport & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524001063/pdfft?md5=0cd3a20b07722b35fbddd3695cbdb0c8&pid=1-s2.0-S2214140524001063-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to increase active travel: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Eleanor Roaf ,&nbsp;Harriet Larrington-Spencer ,&nbsp;Emma R. Lawlor\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jth.2024.101860\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Active travel is beneficial to human and planetary health. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on interventions aiming to promote active travel.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Studies that included an intervention aiming at increasing active travel with pre- and post-intervention measurement of active travel levels were identified through searches of seven databases, with methodological quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 3895 studies (3934 papers) identified, 78 were eligible for inclusion and synthesised narratively within five categories: studies relating to children (n = 10), social/behavioural/policy interventions (n = 18), interventions offering access to/subsidies for bicycles (n = 16), interventions including infrastructure/environmental change without other interventions (n = 20) and those that included multicomponent interventions (n = 14). Most studies (72/78) had a medium or high risk of bias often due to small sample sizes or high participant loss at follow-up. Multicomponent interventions had the highest impact on active travel levels. Interventions that only included social/behavioural/policy elements generally had little impact and had to be repeated/sustained for any impact to be maintained. Increasing the walkability of an area increases walking rates, but small-scale cycling infrastructure improvements without other supportive measures often leads to route substitution rather than an increase in cycling rates. E-bike loans increased active travel and reduced car use, at least in the short term. In studies targeting children, walking buses/cycle trains showed positive impacts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Interventions combining infrastructure change with behavioural/social programmes, interventions involving e-bikes, and cycle-sharing schemes had most impact on active travel levels. Policy makers and planners should ensure that interventions that <em>only</em> address behavioural or social aspects of active travel have long- not short-term funding. If population level change is to be achieved, such interventions should also be accompanied by environmental and infrastructure changes, including road space reallocation and access to e-bikes. This requires political buy-in and public engagement.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Transport & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524001063/pdfft?md5=0cd3a20b07722b35fbddd3695cbdb0c8&pid=1-s2.0-S2214140524001063-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Transport & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524001063\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Transport & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524001063","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 积极出行有益于人类和地球健康。本系统综述旨在综合旨在促进积极出行的干预措施的相关证据。方法通过检索七个数据库,确定了包括旨在增加积极出行的干预措施以及干预前后积极出行水平测量的研究,并使用混合方法评估工具对方法质量进行了评估。结果 在已确定的 3895 项研究(3934 篇论文)中,有 78 项符合纳入条件,并按以下五类进行了叙述性综合:与儿童有关的研究(10 项)、社会/行为/政策干预(18 项)、提供自行车使用/补贴的干预(16 项)、包括基础设施/环境变化但不包括其他干预的干预(20 项)以及包括多成分干预的干预(14 项)。大多数研究(72/78)存在中度或高度偏倚风险,通常是由于样本量较小或随访时参与者流失率较高。多成分干预对积极出行水平的影响最大。仅包含社会/行为/政策元素的干预措施一般影响不大,而且必须重复/持续进行才能保持任何影响。提高一个地区的步行能力会增加步行率,但如果没有其他辅助措施,小规模的自行车基础设施改善往往会导致路线替代,而不是提高自行车骑行率。电动自行车贷款至少在短期内增加了主动出行,减少了汽车使用。在针对儿童的研究中,步行公交车/自行车列车显示出积极的影响。结论将基础设施改变与行为/社会计划相结合的干预措施、涉及电动自行车的干预措施以及自行车共享计划对积极出行水平的影响最大。政策制定者和规划者应确保只针对积极出行的行为或社会方面的干预措施能够获得长期而非短期的资金支持。如果要实现人口层面的变化,这些干预措施还应伴随着环境和基础设施的改变,包括道路空间的重新分配和电动自行车的使用。这需要政治支持和公众参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventions to increase active travel: A systematic review

Introduction

Active travel is beneficial to human and planetary health. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on interventions aiming to promote active travel.

Methods

Studies that included an intervention aiming at increasing active travel with pre- and post-intervention measurement of active travel levels were identified through searches of seven databases, with methodological quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Results

Of 3895 studies (3934 papers) identified, 78 were eligible for inclusion and synthesised narratively within five categories: studies relating to children (n = 10), social/behavioural/policy interventions (n = 18), interventions offering access to/subsidies for bicycles (n = 16), interventions including infrastructure/environmental change without other interventions (n = 20) and those that included multicomponent interventions (n = 14). Most studies (72/78) had a medium or high risk of bias often due to small sample sizes or high participant loss at follow-up. Multicomponent interventions had the highest impact on active travel levels. Interventions that only included social/behavioural/policy elements generally had little impact and had to be repeated/sustained for any impact to be maintained. Increasing the walkability of an area increases walking rates, but small-scale cycling infrastructure improvements without other supportive measures often leads to route substitution rather than an increase in cycling rates. E-bike loans increased active travel and reduced car use, at least in the short term. In studies targeting children, walking buses/cycle trains showed positive impacts.

Conclusion

Interventions combining infrastructure change with behavioural/social programmes, interventions involving e-bikes, and cycle-sharing schemes had most impact on active travel levels. Policy makers and planners should ensure that interventions that only address behavioural or social aspects of active travel have long- not short-term funding. If population level change is to be achieved, such interventions should also be accompanied by environmental and infrastructure changes, including road space reallocation and access to e-bikes. This requires political buy-in and public engagement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
69 days
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信