Association of implementation of a public bicycle share program with intention and self-efficacy: The moderating role of socioeconomic status
Abstract
This natural experiment examines the effect of a public bicycle share program on cognitions and investigates the moderating influence of socioeconomic status on this effect. Two cross-sectional population-based surveys were conducted. Intention and self-efficacy to use the public bicycle share program were assessed by questionnaire. A difference-in-differences approach was adopted using logistic regression analyses. A significant effect of the public bicycle share program was observed on intention (exposure × time; odds ratio = 3.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.50–7.73) and self-efficacy (exposure; odds ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.28–2.01). A positive effect on intention was observed among individuals with low income (exposure × time; odds ratio = 27.85; 95% confidence interval: 2.51–309.25). Implementing a public bicycle share program is associated with increases in intention and self-efficacy for public bicycle share use, although some social inequalities persist.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An increase in sharing intention is connected with an increase in individual competence.
“Their results revealed a connection between an increase in sharing intention and an increase in individual competence [65].”
From What Influences Users’ Intention to Share Works in Designer-Driven User-Generated Content Communities? A Study Based on Self-Determination Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [65]
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Urban Trails and Physical Activity
Fitzhugh, E. C., Bassett, D. R., & Evans, M. F. (2010) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.010 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, H., Wei, J., & Jiang, Q. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11110540 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bélanger-Gravel, A., Gauvin, L., Fuller, D., & Drouin, L.
- Affiliations
- Research Center of the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Canada
- Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
- University of Saskatchewan (CA)
- Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal, Canada
- Venue
- Journal of Health Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-08-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 944-953
- ISSN
- 1359-1053 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7277
- OpenAlex
- W2086827926
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (99711)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- behavioral intention, self-efficacy, socioeconomic status, social inequality, low-income adults, active travel, urban cycling infrastructure
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bicycling, Canada, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Class, Transportation, Self Efficacy, Intention
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
