ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at increasing walking and cycling.
Design Systematic review with meta-analysis
Study selection The electronic databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception on 22nd May 2023. Eligible study designs included randomised and non-randomised studies of interventions with specific study design features that enabled estimation of causality. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date or population age were applied.
Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment with Joanna Briggs Quality Assessment tools. Studies were categorised by intervention types described within the Behaviour Change Wheel. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise results within intervention types.
Main outcome measures The main outcome of interest was modal shift to active modes (walking and cycling). Other outcomes of interest included cycling and walking duration, frequency and counts, active transport duration and frequency, and moderate to vigorous physical activity duration (MVPA).
Results 106 studies that assessed the impact of an intervention on walking, cycling or active transport overall were included. Findings demonstrate that physical environmental restructure interventions, such as protected bike lanes and traffic calming infrastructure, were effective in increasing cycling duration (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.20 – 2.22; 2 studies). Other intervention types, including individually tailored behavioural programmes, and provision of e-bikes were also effective for increasing cycling frequency (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23-1.43; 1 study) and duration (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02.-1.22, 1 study). An intensive education programme intervention demonstrated a positive impact on walking duration (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.68 – 2.21; 1 study). An individually tailored behavioural programme (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 – 1.40; 3 studies) and community walking programme (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.14 – 1.17; 1 study) also increased the odds of increased walking duration. This body of research would benefit from more rigour in study design to limit lower quality evidence with the potential for bias.
Conclusions This review provides evidence for investment in high-quality active transportation infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes, to improve cycling and active transport participation overall. It also provides evidence for investment in other non-infrastructure interventions. Further research to understand which combinations of intervention types are most effective for modal shift are needed. Active transport research needs to include more robust trials and evaluations with consistent outcome measures to improve quality of evidence and provide evidence on which interventions (or combinations of interventions) are most effective.
Study registration PROSPERO CRD42023445982
Funding This research was funded through the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Canada. The research funders did not contribute to the research process or interpretation of findings. The researchers were independent from the funders. Lauren Pearson receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT2020155). Ben Beck receives an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT210100183).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study only used human data that was available within published studies. All included studies are detailed within supplementary materials.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: financial support through the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
Data Availability
All data are available within supplementary materials and individual included studies.