Exploring the association between rail transit investments and utilitarian walking in urban-dwelling Canadians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Public transit, especially rail transit, shows promise as an intervention to increase utilitarian walking at the population level. Cross-sectional studies have shown that individuals who use public transit walk 8 to 24 minutes more per day than those who do not (Rissel et al., 2012). However, to our knowledge, no longitudinal study examining long-term effects of public rail transit exposure on utilitarian walking has been carried out. Goal: A retrospective cohort study was performed to investigate how investments in public transit in urban areas in Canada influenced utilitarian walking (i.e. walking to work, school or to run errands) in adults. The study had two objectives: (1) to identify and geocode new rail transportation infrastructure in urban Canada between 1994 and 2010 and link this information to respondent information from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS), a longitudinal health survey of more than 17,000 Canadians; and 2) to characterize the utilitarian walking profiles of NPHS respondents who were exposed to rail transit investment within walking distances of their home neighbourhoods. Methods: Data came from the Canadian NPHS, a biennial survey carried out between 1994 and 2010. A geographic information system was used to identify NPHS participants living in a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) where a new rail station (light rail, subway or commuter rail) was built during the survey's timespan. Levels of utilitarian walking were compared over time (before and after new stations opened) in individuals living 2,000 meters or less from new rail transit. Distance from the station was used as a measure of exposure to new transit. A mixed-effect logistic regression model compared the odds of walking one or more hours per week when exposed (living less than 2000 meters) to a new station compared with not being exposed (living more than 2,000 meters from the new station within a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)). For respondents who were exposed to transit, a sensitivity analysis comparing levels of utilitarian walking at different distances from the station (0-800 meters, 801-1,000 meters, 1,001-1,500 meters and 1,501-2,000 meters) was carried out.Results: Between 1994 and 2010, 84 new rail stations were built within 2,000 meters of NPHS participants' households. A total of 5,428 NPHS participants lived in a CMA with a new station: 414 lived within 2,000 meters while 5,014 lived at more than 2,000 meters. There was an increase of approximately 3% in the proportion of respondents reporting one or more hours of utilitarian walking per week after exposure to new rail transit, although this increase was not statistically significant. Individuals living within 2,000 meters from a new transit investment had 20% higher odds of engaging in one or more hours of utilitarian walking per week than individuals who lived more than 2,000 meters from new urban transit investments (univariate regression: OR 1.19, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (1.00, 1.41)). The relationship between utilitarian walking and exposure to new transit was no longer significant when adjusted for neighborhood walkability (multivariate regression adjusting for age, sex, education level, self-rated health, physical activity level in leisure time and neighborhood walkability: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99, 1.40). Within those exposed to a new station, those living closest to the new rail transit investments (i.e., ⤠800m) showed the largest increase in levels of utilitarian walking, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: There were modest detectable increases in utilitarian walking profiles of those exposed to new rail transit investment in Canada between 1994 and 2010. Longitudinal evidence generally supports cross-sectional research findings and provides further support for the physical activity benefits of public transportation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».