Evaluating Health Effects of Transport Interventions

Ogilvie, David; Mitchell, Rebecca; Mutrie, Nanette; Petticrew, Mark; Platt, Stephen

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.030

Cited by 72 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are various methodological challenges in conducting prospective evaluations of environmental interventions and relocation studies, and some of the evaluations of changes to the environment have had methodological limitations [25,26]. Despite these challenges and limitations, in recent years some studies that examined the effects of changes to the environment have been published [27].…”

Section: Strength Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Current Practice in Reviews of the Built Environment and Physical Activity

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, there has been a marked increase in studies about built environments and physical activity. As the number of publications is growing rapidly, literature reviews play an important role in identifying primary studies and in synthesizing their findings. However, many of the reviews of effectiveness in this field demonstrate methodological limitations that might lead to inaccurate portrayals of the evidence. Some literature reviews a priori excluded intervention studies even though they provide the strongest level of evidence. The label 'systematic review' has mostly been used inappropriately. One of the major criteria of a systematic review that is hardly ever met is that the quality of the primary studies needs to be assessed and this should be reflected in the synthesis, presentation and interpretation of results. With few exceptions, 'systematic' reviews about environments and physical activity did not refer to or follow the QUO-RUM or PRISMA statements. This commentary points out the usefulness of the PRISMA statement to standardize the reporting of methodology of reviews and provides additional guidance to limit sources of bias in them. The findings and recommendations from this article can help in moving forward the synthesis of evidence of effectiveness not only in built environments and physical activity, but also more broadly in exercise science and public health. Key PointsMany reviews about built environments and physical activity have methodological limitations.The label 'systematic review' has mostly been used inappropriately.The PRISMA statement is useful to standardize the reporting of methodology and limit bias in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Strength Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Current Practice in Reviews of the Built Environment and Physical Activity

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We summarised these issues into contrasting narratives and articulated them as two equally valid, competing, testable, overarching hypotheses about the effects of the intervention, expressed in the form of vignettes of two alternative extreme cases, a 'virtuous spiral' and a 'vicious spiral' ( Table 1). 52,53 An independent Public Local Inquiry (PLI) in 2003 considered the arguments for and against the construction project. The inquirers concluded that the claimed benefits were likely to be 'ephemeral' and that the new motorway 'would be very likely to have very serious undesirable results' for local communities, and, therefore, recommended against the proposal.…”

Section: The Extension Of the M74 Motorway In Glasgowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health impacts of the M74 urban motorway extension: a mixed-method natural experimental study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Making travel easier can improve people’s access to opportunities, but motor transport also incurs substantial undesirable health and social impacts. Aims To assess how a new urban motorway affected travel and activity patterns, road accidents and well-being in local communities, and how these impacts were experienced and brought about. Design The Traffic and Health in Glasgow study, a mixed-method controlled before-and-after study. Setting Glasgow, UK. Participants Repeat cross-sectional survey samples of 1345 and 1343 adults, recruited in 2005 and 2013, respectively. Of these, 365 formed a longitudinal cohort, 196 took part in a quantitative substudy using accelerometers and global positioning system receivers and 30, living within 400 m of the new motorway, took part in a qualitative substudy along with 12 other informants. Complementary analyses used police STATS19 road traffic accident data (1997–2014) and Scottish Household Survey travel diaries (2009–13). Intervention A new 5-mile, six-lane section of the M74 motorway, opened in 2011 and running through predominantly deprived neighbourhoods in south-east Glasgow, with associated changes to the urban landscape. Main outcome measures Differences in self-reported travel behaviour (1-day travel record), physical activity (short International Physical Activity Questionnaire) and well-being [Short Form 8 Health Survey (SF-8) and a short version of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale], and in the incidence of road traffic accidents. Methods A combination of multivariable cohort, cross-sectional, repeat cross-sectional and interrupted time series regression analyses comparing residents of the ‘M74 corridor’ intervention area and two matched control areas, complemented by novel qualitative spatial methods. Graded measures of the proximity of the motorway to each participant’s home served as a further basis for controlled comparisons. Results Both benefits and harms were identified. Cohort participants living closer to the new motorway experienced significantly reduced mental well-being (mental component summary of the SF-8 scale) over time compared with those living further away [linear regression coefficient –3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) –6.6 to –0.7]. In the area surrounding an existing motorway, this association was concentrated among those with chronic conditions. In repeat cross-sectional analyses, participants living closer to a new motorway junction were more likely to report using a car at follow-up than those living further away (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 10.7). We found weaker quantitative evidence of a decline in physical activity participation and no quantitative evidence of an overall change in either active travel or accidents associated with motorway exposure. Qualitative evidence suggested that, although the new motorway improved connectivity for those with dispersed social networks and access to motor vehicles, the impacts were more complex for others, some of whom found the motorway to be a cause of severance. Changes in community composition and cohesion, and perceptions of personal safety, were widely perceived as more important to local people. Limitations A key limitation of natural experimental studies is that the risk of residual confounding cannot be eliminated. Conclusions Overall, these findings highlight the potential for urban infrastructural projects of this kind to add further burdens to already disadvantaged communities, exacerbating inequalities and contributing to poorer health outcomes. The health and social impacts of such initiatives should be more fully taken into account in planning and research. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

show abstract

“…However, they are also important sources of methodological and other information to be used when planning new studies. Our own systematic reviews on the health effects of housing improvement and new road building directly informed the development of new primary studies assessing the outcomes of the provision of new social housing and the building of a new motorway, respectively (Ogilvie et al, 2006). The specific contribution of these reviews -aside from identifying the partial state of the evidence in these fields, and thus indicating the need for new research -was to help specify and refine the research questions, to identify the primary and secondary outcomes, and to estimate the possible range and size of positive and negative effects.…”

Section: What Are the Resource Implications?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews – do they ‘work’ in informing decision-making around health inequalities?

Petticrew

Roberts

2008

HEPL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating Health Effects of Transport Interventions

Cited by 72 publications

References 28 publications

Improving Current Practice in Reviews of the Built Environment and Physical Activity

Improving Current Practice in Reviews of the Built Environment and Physical Activity

Health impacts of the M74 urban motorway extension: a mixed-method natural experimental study

Systematic reviews – do they ‘work’ in informing decision-making around health inequalities?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About