↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
47 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronia Arnott, Lucia Rehackova, Linda Errington, Falko F Sniehotta, Jennifer Roberts, Vera Araujo-Soares

Abstract

BackgroundReducing reliance on motorised transport and increasing use of more physically active modes of travel may offer an opportunity to address physical inactivity. This review evaluates the evidence for the effects of behavioural interventions to reduce car use for journeys made by adults and codes intervention development and content.MethodsThe review follows the procedure stated in the registration protocol published in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42011001797). Controlled studies evaluating behavioural interventions to reduce car use compared with no interventions or alternative interventions on outcome measures of transport behaviours taken in adult participants are included in this review. Searches were conducted on all records in Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycInfo, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Transportation Research Information Service (TRIS), Transportation Research International Documentation (TRID), and Web of Science databases. Peer reviewed publications in English language meeting the inclusion criteria are eligible. Methodological quality is assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Interventions are categorised in terms of behavioural frameworks, theories and techniques.Results15 full text articles are included, representing 13 unique studies, with 4895 participants and 27 intervention arms. Risk of bias across the review is appraised as considerable due to the unclear methodological quality of individual studies. Heterogeneity of included studies is considerable. Meta-analyses reveal no significant effect on reduction of frequency of car use or on increasing the proportion of journeys by alternative, more active modes of transport. There is insufficient data relating to alternative outcomes such as distance and duration which may have important health implications. Interventions were top-down but could not be described as theory-based. Intervention efficacy was associated with the use of a combination of information provision and behavioural regulation techniques. There was a lack of consideration of opportunity for change and behaviour in context.ConclusionsThere is no evidence for the efficacy of existing behavioural interventions to reduce car trips included in this review. The evidence for efficacy of behavioural interventions to decrease distance and duration of car journeys is limited and inconclusive. Overall the evidence is highly heterogeneous and is at considerable risk of bias. Future research should investigate alternative behavioural interventions in high quality, controlled studies informed by existing evidence, theory, and viewers of potential users. Future intervention studies should increase scientific rigour, include objective outcome measures, and incorporate thorough evaluations as standard.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malta 1 <1%
Unknown 229 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Researcher 37 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 33 14%
Unknown 59 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 15%
Social Sciences 29 12%
Engineering 18 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 6%
Environmental Science 12 5%
Other 52 22%
Unknown 74 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2023.
All research outputs
#854,906
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#272
of 2,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,933
of 375,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 375,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.