Table 2 Description of the methodological quality, design elements and additional analyses
Reference (country) | Quality criteria [19]a | Methodological items [12]b | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study designc | Participation and representativeness | Comparability at baseline | Credibility of data collection methods | Retention | Attributability of effect to intervention | Multiple comparison groups | Complementing research methodologies | |
Cycling behavior | ||||||||
Aittasalo [23] (Finland) | C | Participation: 49% Only limited data was available regarding the working-age population in the region. The study population was broadly representative with the general adult population in the region | No comparison group | Survey: no info on validity | 45% | • Half of the workplaces went through economic problems and workforce adjustment during the study | No other comparison groups | • Published protocol • Survey among employees • Safety monitoring • Count data |
Aldred [24] (UK) | A | Participation: 2% There was an underrepresentation of 16 to 24 year olds, non-white individuals and unemployed individuals. Participants were more likely to have a car or van in the household, and to have cycled | Comparisons groups were broadly comparable. Adjusted for a wide range of variables | 7-day recall instrument with acceptable validity | 50% | • Dose response effects were reported • The first interventions were targeting areas perceived as more receptive to cycling and walking interventions | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents |
Brown [25] (US) | A | Participation: 29% Representativeness was not shown | Adjusted for some of the characteristics in which the groups significantly differed at baseline | GPS and accelerometer data, using validated algorithm | 59% | • Multiple improvements to other nearby infrastructure • Spill-over effect occurred: control residents were exposed to the intervention | No other comparison groups | • Published protocol • Survey among residents Health indicators: • Energy expenditure • BMI |
Brown [26] (US) | C | Same as above | No comparison group | Same as above | Same as above | No comments made | No other comparison groups | Same as above |
Burbidge and Goulias [27] (US) | C | Participation was not shown. Study population was older, had less cars in the household and were more often unemployed | No comparison group | 1-day activity diary, modified from a validated household activity diary | 56% | No comments made | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents and new residents • Intercept survey Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Chowdhury [28] (New Zealand) | C | Participation was not shown. Study population was representative | No comparison group | Survey, methods not described | Not applicable | No comments made | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents |
Crane [29] (Australia) | A | Participation was not shown. Study population was higher educated and more physically active than the general population | Adjusted for some of the characteristics in which the groups significantly differed | Survey: no info on validity Travel diary: no info on validity | 48% | • No dose response effects were observed • Suburbs furthest away from the cycle way were quite diverse in infrastructure • Spill-over effect occurred: users of the cycle way included participants living in control areas | No other comparison groups | • Published protocol • Survey among residents • Count data Health indicators: • Physical activity • Quality of life |
Deegan [30] (UK) | C | Participation and representativeness were not shown | No comparison group | Census data, methods not described | Not applicable | • Congestion charge and bombings on public transport resulted in sharp increases in cycling levels | • The increase in cycling in the intervention areas was larger than observed in other areas | • Safety monitoring |
Dill [31] (US) | A | Participation: 3% Representativeness was not shown | Adjusted for variables that were tested to be significant | GPS and accelerometer data, shown to successfully predict 79% of the cycling trips | 72% | • The city may have chosen to install bicycle boulevards in areas where residents were supportive of new cycling infrastructure • Unknown changes in the physical and social environment in specific areas may have influenced the results • Data collection by means of GPS and accelerometers may have changed behavior | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Count data Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Evenson [32] (US) | C | Participation: 47% Study population was more highly educated | No comparison group | Non validated method of interviewing | 64% | • Questions mentioning the trail were only asked at follow-up and after assessing cycling behavior • Substitution of physical activity behavior may have occurred | • Comparing users and non-users of the intervention did not change the results | • Survey among residents Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Goodman [33] (UK) | A | Participation: 16% Study population was broadly representative, except that fewer young adults were included, and they were somewhat healthier, better educated, and less likely to have children | Adjusted for a wide range of variables | 7-day recall instrument with acceptable validity Survey, validated | 42% | • Dose response effects were reported • The increase in cycling was only seen for users of the intervention | • Comparing users and non-users of the intervention showed that the increase in cycling was only seen for users of the intervention | • Published protocol • Survey among residents Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Song [34] (UK) | C | Same as above | No comparison group | 7-day recall instrument with acceptable validity Survey, validated | 45% | • The increase in cycling may have resulted from the economic crisis, rising fuel costs, and the ageing of the sample | No other comparison groups | Same as above |
Hirsch [35] (US) | A | Participation and representativeness were not shown. | Adjusted for a wide range of variables | Census data (before) and a community survey (after): no info on validity | Not applicable | • Dose response effects were reported • Unknown if people moving into the neighborhood cycle more, or if existing residents change their behaviors • Other infrastructure changes, including a new light rail service, may have influenced the results | • Historical trends showed that the increase in cycling in the intervention period was larger than in previous years | No other methods used |
Krizek [36] (US) | C | Participation and representativeness were not shown. | No comparison group | Census data, methods not described | Not applicable | Many potential factors were listed, but only those with an explanation were listed here: • Minor other infrastructural improvements were made in the study areas • Small demographic differences were not the sole explanation of the results • Intervention areas had already a higher cycling level at baseline. The facilities might be the effect, rather than the cause, of high cycling levels | • The increase in cycling in the intervention area was larger than observed in the area as a whole | No other methods used |
Lanzendorf [37] (Germany) | C | Participation and representativeness were not shown. | No comparison group | National travel survey, valid for comparison over time according to the authors | Not applicable | • Hard to disentangle the effects of the infrastructure and marketing campaigns. A combination of both may have the largest impact | • The increase in cycling in the intervention cities was comparable to the change in other big cities, but larger than in the country as a whole | • Document analysis and expert interview to analyze the development of cycling policies |
Merom [38] (US) | A | Participation: 48% Representativeness was not shown. | Not adjusted for characteristics in which the groups statistically differed at baseline | Telephone interviews, validated | 79% | No comments made | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Bike counts • Campaign reach |
Panter [39] (UK) | A | Participation was not shown. The sample contained a higher percentage of woman, older adults and those with a degree, and a smaller proportion of those who rented their home | Adjusted for a wide range of variables | 7-day recall instrument with acceptable validity Survey, validated | 41% | • Dose response effects were reported | No other comparison groups | • Published protocol • Survey among residents Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Pedroso [40] (US) | B | Participation and representativeness were not shown | No comparison group | Census data, methods not described | Not applicable | • Several other programs and interventions were implemented during the study period | No other comparison groups | • Safety monitoring |
Smith [41] (US) | C | Participation and representativeness were not shown | No comparison group | Methods not described | Not applicable | • The percentage of cyclists using bike lanes declined over time | No other comparison groups | • Safety monitoring |
Wilmink and Hartman [42] (The Netherlands) | A | Participation and representativeness were not shown | No information on comparability | Home interview, no info on validity | Not shown | • There was no change observed in total mobility over time | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Bike counts |
Usage of the infrastructure | ||||||||
Aittasalo [23] (Finland) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | Automatic counters: 4 locations, continuous measurements for 2 years | Not applicable | • Half of the workplaces went through economic problems and workforce adjustment during the study | No other comparison groups | • Published protocol • Survey among employees • Safety monitoring • Cycling behavior |
Barnes [43] (US) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | 54 h of video observations: before and after at 1 location, 6 days, 4.5 h per day | Not applicable | • No unusual weather or traffic patterns were observed • It is unclear whether cyclist simply changed their routes | No other comparison groups | • Safety monitoring |
Crane [29] (Australia) | B | Not applicable | No comparison group | Automatic counters: 2 locations, measurements in October for 3 years on weekdays, 6 h per day | Not applicable | • Results may reflect population growth | • The increase in cyclists was only seen in the intervention area, while it decreased in the city as a whole • Historical trends in the number of cyclists were comparable between the intervention areas and the city as a whole | • Published protocol • Survey among residents • Cycling behavior Health indicators: • Physical activity • Quality of life |
Dill [31] (US) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | Not described in the paper | Not applicable | • Unknown changes in the physical and social environment in specific areas | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Cycling behavior Health indicators: • Physical activity |
Fitzhugh [44] (US) | A | Not applicable | Broadly comparable | 72 h of direct observations: before and after at 3 locations, 2 days, 6 h per day | Not applicable | • Study neighborhoods were not exposed to any marketing or awareness campaigns • Spill-over effect may have occurred: people cycling may not live in the intervention neighborhood | No other comparison groups | No other methods used |
Goodno [45] (US) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | Not described in the paper | Not applicable | • Weather conditions and seasonality may have influenced the results | • The increase in cyclists in the intervention area was larger than in the city as a whole | • Survey among residents • Survey among business owners • Safety monitoring • Intercept survey |
Hans [46] (Denmark) | B | Not applicable | No comparison group | Automatic counters calibrated by visual/manual counts: 2 locations, continuous measurements for 3 years | Not applicable | • Most of the increase in cyclists can be attributed to switching from alternative routes | No other comparison groups | • Intercept survey |
Heesch [47] (Australia) - direct observations | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | 7.5 h of direct observations: Before: 1 location, 1 day, 2.5 h After: 2 locations, 1 day, 2.5 h | Not applicable | • The findings suggest some shifting of cyclist | No other comparison groups | • Intercept survey • Mobile phone application to capture movements of cyclists |
Heesch [47] (Australia) - mobile phone application | A | Only 10% of the population uses the app, and those were not representative of the broader cycling community | Comparison streets were all connecting the suburbs and the city center | 1 year counts made by a mobile phone application: 4 locations, continuous measurement for 1 year | Not applicable | • The findings suggest some shifting of cyclist • The increase in people using the app may have influenced the results • Data on trips was analyzed, and it is unknown if the same cyclists were travelling more frequent, or if more cyclists were travelling | No other comparison groups | • Intercept survey • Direct observations |
Law [48] (UK) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | Before: direct observations: 21 locations, 1 day, 10 hAfter: automatic counters: 21 locations, 1 day,12 h | Not applicable | • The intervention effect is likely to be over-estimated due to seasonal differences • Change in data collection methods may have influenced the results | No other comparison groups | • Safety monitoring |
Marques [49] (Spain) | B | Not applicable | No comparison group | Counts data, no description of the protocol | Not applicable | • Changes in population were not meaningful • Changes in data procedures over time may have influenced the results | No other comparison groups | • Safety monitoring |
McCartney [50] (UK) | B | Not applicable | No comparison group | 560 h of digital video recordings manually checked: before and after at 5 locations, 4 days, 14 h | Not applicable | • Displacement effects were observed • Weather and seasonality may have influenced the results • Traffic conditions may have influenced the results | • The relative increase in cyclists in the intervention area was larger than in the city as a whole | No other methods used |
Merom [38] (US) | B | Not applicable | No comparison group | Automatic counters: 4 locations, continuous measurements for 5 months | Not applicable | No comments made | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Cycling behavior • Campaign reach |
Nguyen [51] (Singapore) | A | Not applicable | No information on comparability | Direct observations: few weekdays during peak periods, no precise description of the protocol | Not applicable | • Shifting of routes was observed • No major change in land use • Possibly reverse causation since segments that were improved had a high demand before the intervention | • The increase in cyclists was even larger on segments that were already improved before start of the current study | • Survey among residents • Intercept survey |
Parker [52] (US) | C | Not applicable | No comparison group | 216 h of direct observations; Before: 1 location, 10 days, 9 h After: 1 location, 14 days, 9 h | Not applicable | • Displacement from other streets may have occurred • It is possible that more people ride a bike because of the rising costs of car ownership • The population increase may have influenced the results, but it is unlikely that this explains the total change in cycling | No other comparison groups | No other methods used |
Parker [53] (US) | A | Not applicable | No information on comparability | 660 h of direct observations: before and after at 3 location, 10 days, 11 h | Not applicable | • Some displacement of cyclists from nearby streets was observed • Change in population size is unlikely to be the reason for the increase in cycling | No other comparison groups | No other methods used |
Wilmink and Hartman [42] (The Netherlands) | A | Not applicable | No comparison group | Count data, no description of the protocol: 250 locations | Not applicable | • Population growth may have influenced the findings | No other comparison groups | • Survey among residents • Cycling behavior |