Limits...
Theorising and testing environmental pathways to behaviour change: natural experimental study of the perception and use of new infrastructure to promote walking and cycling in local communities.

Panter J, Ogilvie D, iConnect consorti - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: Participants who lived near and used the new routes reported improvements in their perceptions of provision and safety.Physical improvement of the environment itself was the key to the effectiveness of the intervention, and seeking to change people's perceptions may be of limited value.Studies of how interventions lead to population behaviour change should complement those concerned with estimating their effects in supporting valid causal inference.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Path models fitted in Mplus.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4563264&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007593F1: Path models fitted in Mplus.

Mentions: Based on these results, a path model was developed to capture the most plausible theory of change linking proximity to the intervention with change in time spent walking and cycling (figure 1A). Perceived changes in infrastructure, safety and visibility were all associated with proximity, and because these were hypothesised to change as a direct and proximate result of the intervention they were placed directly after proximity in the model. All three perceived changes were also associated with use of the intervention, and we assumed that the more plausible causal ordering was that the changes in the perceived supportiveness of the environment may have led to use of the new infrastructure. Use was also associated with proximity and with change in time spent walking and cycling, so we included an additional indirect path between exposure and outcome via use only. Only one of the inter-relationships between the perceived environmental changes—that between infrastructure and visibility—was identified as plausible, and we assumed that perceived improvements in infrastructure were more likely to reflect a direct and proximate effect of the physical intervention and may therefore have preceded the perceived change in the visibility of walking and cycling. Given the lack of clear theory or evidence in relation to the causal ordering of some of these mediators, however, we developed two alternative models that were also consistent with the associations observed in step 2: one in which the perceived change in visibility preceded the perceived change in infrastructure (see online supplementary file 2; alternative 1), and one in which the perceived change in safety followed use of the infrastructure (see online supplementary file 2; alternative file 2).


Theorising and testing environmental pathways to behaviour change: natural experimental study of the perception and use of new infrastructure to promote walking and cycling in local communities.

Panter J, Ogilvie D, iConnect consorti - BMJ Open (2015)

Path models fitted in Mplus.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4563264&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007593F1: Path models fitted in Mplus.
Mentions: Based on these results, a path model was developed to capture the most plausible theory of change linking proximity to the intervention with change in time spent walking and cycling (figure 1A). Perceived changes in infrastructure, safety and visibility were all associated with proximity, and because these were hypothesised to change as a direct and proximate result of the intervention they were placed directly after proximity in the model. All three perceived changes were also associated with use of the intervention, and we assumed that the more plausible causal ordering was that the changes in the perceived supportiveness of the environment may have led to use of the new infrastructure. Use was also associated with proximity and with change in time spent walking and cycling, so we included an additional indirect path between exposure and outcome via use only. Only one of the inter-relationships between the perceived environmental changes—that between infrastructure and visibility—was identified as plausible, and we assumed that perceived improvements in infrastructure were more likely to reflect a direct and proximate effect of the physical intervention and may therefore have preceded the perceived change in the visibility of walking and cycling. Given the lack of clear theory or evidence in relation to the causal ordering of some of these mediators, however, we developed two alternative models that were also consistent with the associations observed in step 2: one in which the perceived change in visibility preceded the perceived change in infrastructure (see online supplementary file 2; alternative 1), and one in which the perceived change in safety followed use of the infrastructure (see online supplementary file 2; alternative file 2).

Bottom Line: Participants who lived near and used the new routes reported improvements in their perceptions of provision and safety.Physical improvement of the environment itself was the key to the effectiveness of the intervention, and seeking to change people's perceptions may be of limited value.Studies of how interventions lead to population behaviour change should complement those concerned with estimating their effects in supporting valid causal inference.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus