The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess what interventions are effective in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling and to assess the health effects of such interventions. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified from electronic databases, bibliographies, websites, and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic search and appraisal to identify experimental or observational studies with a prospective or controlled retrospective design that evaluated any intervention applied to an urban population or area by measuring outcomes in members of the local population. RESULTS: 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found some evidence that targeted behaviour change programmes can change the behaviour of motivated subgroups, resulting (in the largest study) in a shift of around 5% of all trips at a population level. Single studies of commuter subsidies and a new railway station also showed positive effects. The balance of best available evidence about publicity campaigns, engineering measures, and other interventions suggests that they have not been effective. Participants in trials of active commuting experienced short term improvements in certain measures of health and fitness, but we found no good evidence on effects on health of any effective intervention at population level. CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence of effectiveness in promoting a modal shift is for targeted behaviour change programmes, but the social distribution of their effects is unclear and some other types of intervention have yet to be rigorously evaluated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.56.2.119 · Cited by 1,042
Cited by
Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review
SAELENS, B. E., & HANDY, S. L. (2008) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31817c67a4 · Cited by 1,912
van Sluijs, E. M. F., McMinn, A. M., & Griffin, S. J. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39320.843947.be · Cited by 1,120
Built environments and obesity in disadvantaged populations.
Lovasi, G. S., Hutson, M. A., Guerra, M., & Neckerman, K. M. (2009) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/epirev/mxp005 · Cited by 820
Interventions to promote walking: systematic review
Ogilvie, D., Foster, C. E., Rothnie, H., Cavill, N., Hamilton, V., Fitzsimons, C. F., & Mutrie, N. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39198.722720.be · Cited by 695
Self-citationActive commuting and cardiovascular risk: a meta-analytic review
Hamer, M., & Chida, Y. (2008) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.03.006 · Cited by 656
Metadata
- Authors
- Ogilvie, D., Egan, M., Hamilton, V., & Petticrew, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-09-22
- Volume
- 329
- Issue
- 7469
- Pages
- 763
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2015171947
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55
- The paper
- Ogilvie, D., Egan, M., Hamilton, V., & Petticrew, M. (2004). Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.