Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding.
Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-28
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Araujo-Soares V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arnott B;Rehackova L;Errington L;Sniehotta FF;Roberts J;Araujo-Soares V
减少对机动交通的依赖和增加使用更多体力活动的旅行方式可能为解决缺乏身体活动提供机会。本综述评估了行为干预对减少成人出行汽车使用的影响的证据，并对干预的发展和内容进行了编码。审查遵循在PROSPERO数据库（注册号CRD42011001797）中公布的注册方案中规定的程序。本综述包括了评估行为干预减少汽车使用与不干预或替代干预对成人参与者交通行为结果测量的对照研究。对应用社会科学索引和摘要（ASSIA）、Ovid Embase、Ovid Medline、Ovid PsycInfo、Scopus、社会学摘要、交通研究信息服务（TRIS）、交通研究国际文献（TRID）和Web of Science数据库中的所有记录进行检索。符合入选标准的英文同行评审出版物。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估方法学质量。干预措施按行为框架、理论和技术进行分类。包括15篇全文文章，代表13项独特的研究，4895名参与者和27个干预组。由于个别研究的方法学质量不明确，整个综述的偏倚风险被评价为相当大。纳入研究的异质性相当大。荟萃分析显示，对减少汽车使用频率或增加替代、更积极的交通方式的旅行比例没有显著影响。关于距离和持续时间等可能对健康产生重要影响的其他结果的数据不足。干预措施是自上而下的，但不能被描述为基于理论。干预效果与信息提供和行为调节技术的结合使用有关。没有考虑到在环境中改变和行为的机会。在本综述中，没有证据表明现有的行为干预措施对减少汽车出行的有效性。行为干预减少汽车旅行距离和持续时间的有效性的证据是有限的和不确定的。总的来说，证据是高度异质性的，存在相当大的偏倚风险。未来的研究应根据现有证据、理论和潜在用户的观察对象，在高质量的对照研究中调查其他行为干预措施。未来的干预研究应提高科学的严谨性，包括客观的结果测量，并将彻底的评估作为标准。本文的在线版本（doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Reducing 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. The 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. 15 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. There 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. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0133-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Aarts, H;Verplanken, B;van Knippenberg, A
通讯作者：
van Knippenberg, A
DOI：
10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
发表时间：
1991-12-01
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
AJZEN, I
通讯作者：
AJZEN, I
DOI：
10.1016/j.trf.2008.04.001
发表时间：
2008-11-01
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Eriksson, Lars;Friman, Margareta;Garling, Tommy
通讯作者：
Garling, Tommy
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Abraham, Charles;Michie, Susan
通讯作者：
Michie, Susan
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Aittasalo, Minna;Rinne, Marjo;Vasankari, Tommi
通讯作者：
Vasankari, Tommi