Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 430

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 access
Ogilvie, David, Egan, Matt, Hamilton, Val, Petticrew, Mark·2004·BMJ

Abstract

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 DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified from electronic databases, bibliographies, websites, and reference lists.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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 430

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.