Imperial College London
Alternate

DrAudreyde Nazelle

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Centre for Environmental Policy

Senior Lecturer
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 7319anazelle Website

 
 
//

Location

 

20416 Prince's GardensSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Branion-Calles:2019:10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651,
author = {Branion-Calles, M and Winters, M and Nelson, T and de, Nazelle A and Int, Panis L and Avila-Palencia, I and Anaya-Boig, E and Rojas-Rueda, D and Dons, E and Gotschi, T},
doi = {10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651},
journal = {Journal of Transport and Health},
pages = {1--12},
title = {Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement: A case study from bicycling research},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651},
volume = {15},
year = {2019}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - IntroductionMeasuring bicycling behaviour is critical to bicycling research. A common study design question is whether to measure bicycling behaviour once (cross-sectional) or multiple times (longitudinal). The Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches (PASTA) project is a longitudinal cohort study of over 10,000 participants from seven European cities over two years. We used PASTA data as a case study to investigate how measuring once or multiple times impacted three factors: a) sample size b) participation bias and c) accuracy of bicycling behaviour estimates.MethodsWe compared two scenarios: i) as if only the baseline data were collected (cross-sectional approach) and ii) as if the baseline plus repeat follow-ups were collected (longitudinal approach). We compared each approach in terms of differences in sample size, distribution of sociodemographic characteristics, and bicycling behaviour. In the cross-sectional approach, we measured participants long-term bicycling behaviour by asking for recall of typical weekly habits, while in the longitudinal approach we measured by taking the average of bicycling reported for each 7-day period.ResultsRelative to longitudinal, the cross-sectional approach provided a larger sample size and slightly better representation of certain sociodemographic groups, with worse estimates of long-term bicycling behaviour. The longitudinal approach suffered from participation bias, especially the drop-out of more frequent bicyclists. The cross-sectional approach under-estimated the proportion of the population that bicycled, as it captured ‘typical’ behaviour rather than 7-day recall. The magnitude and directionality of the difference between typical weekly (cross-sectional approach) and the average 7-day recall (longitudinal approach) varied depending on how much bicycling was initially reported.ConclusionsIn our case study we found that measuring bicycling once, resulted in a larger sample with better repres
AU  - Branion-Calles,M
AU  - Winters,M
AU  - Nelson,T
AU  - de,Nazelle A
AU  - Int,Panis L
AU  - Avila-Palencia,I
AU  - Anaya-Boig,E
AU  - Rojas-Rueda,D
AU  - Dons,E
AU  - Gotschi,T
DO  - 10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651
EP  - 12
PY  - 2019///
SN  - 2214-1405
SP  - 1
TI  - Impacts of study design on sample size, participation bias, and outcome measurement: A case study from bicycling research
T2  - Journal of Transport and Health
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100651
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000505158300017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140519302385?via%3Dihub
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/80109
VL  - 15
ER  -
Download