22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers and enablers to local active travel during COVID-19: A case study of Streetspace interventions in two London boroughs

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, UK local authorities increased emergency active travel interventions. This study aimed to understand what aspects of temporary Streetspace for London schemes represent barriers or enablers to walking and cycling for short local journeys.

          Methods: Focusing on two Inner London boroughs, we conducted 21 semi-structured stakeholder interviews and sampled 885 public comments about Streetspace schemes. We triangulated the data in a thematic analysis to identify barriers and enablers, which were categorised using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model.

          Results: Opportunity and motivation factors were reflected in the barriers (accessibility and integration of the schemes; controversy, dissatisfaction, and doubt) and enablers (new routes and spaces; sustainability and health beliefs) and mixed themes (changes to traffic and appeal of the area; feelings of safety). Capability was not reflected in the main themes.

          Conclusions: Although aspects of Streetspace schemes were seen to enable active travel, our findings suggest that additional processes to address the acceptability, fairness, and unintended consequences of emergency interventions will be important to their long-term success for health and sustainability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references122

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

              The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen’s kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from −1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen’s suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                18 April 2023
                2023
                18 April 2023
                : 8
                : 177
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, England, WC1E 6AE, UK
                [2 ]Future Health Technologies, Singapore-ETH Centre, Campus for Research Excellence And Technological Enterprise, National University of Singapore University Town, 138602, Singapore
                [1 ]University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [1 ]university of Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [1 ]Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol, England, UK
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3732-8002
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7389-2036
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3610-8411
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19164.1
                10468679
                37663794
                dcff3a1a-b500-4d34-a785-ae5a8a4d8f0b
                Copyright: © 2023 Lunetto M et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 March 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome
                Award ID: 209387
                This study was supported by Wellcome [209387, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/209387>https://doi.org/10.35802/209387</a>].
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                active travel,infrastructure,walking and cycling,behaviour change,intervention,covid‑19

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content116

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors1,441