Paul et al
I had a look at this paper and, to be honest, I feel the methodology and
literature research is, I feel, somewhat "sus". Max Wallis, Emeritus Prof
at Cardiff picked it up and this is the pre-critique I wrote:
""
Roy/Max
A couple of observations on this:
The qualification the Dr Worwood commented on is a standard one attached to
consultants reports commissioned by public bodies (I've seen it on similar
documents in the US), even if they are part of the supporting documentation
for a policy...so there's nothing particularly sinister about it. What it
does allow is the release of government commissioned work to aid discussion
of issues and policy.
Second, more important, the reference sources for this report tend towards
government sourced information and studies, there's disproportionately few
independent reports and, with the exception of the US Department of
Transport Research Board reports, few sourced from within the
"transportation" arena. I'm sure can think of (and have) a few useful ones
that don't appear. Sooo.....
Third, leading on from the above. It is quite clear how this was arrived
at, it's because researchers used a limited, and health dominated, set of
on-line databases. It's an increasing problem as researchers (and
libraries) move towards a totally electronic reference system.....they (and
us) are totally dependent on the references journals and databases linked to
the particular search database the institution or consultancy subscribe to.
In this particular case that would be determined by the York University's
Library and Health Research Institute (which was commissioned) subscription
policy. The research would also have followed the natural health bias of
the researchers themselves (who are health research specalists).....aside
from a few well known government research institutes (the US DoT for
instance) they just wouldn't know all the places to look outside their own
field.
The report is therefore "naturally" biased, simply because of the nature of
the research brief and data sources. That in itself is not problem until
NICE and safety campaigners start taking it out of context, then it's the
devils own job to sort it out....a bit like to helmets thing.
Final comment, although I haven't yet read the report in detail, it looks
awfully like "paint by numbers" research, where only research reports
meeting pre-selection criteria are reviewed. In my view the report may lack
the insight and depth necessary to make the outcome of deep significance.
Max, you'd have more experience of research approach to be able to comment
on that aspect.
Hope this helps
John Meudell
""
I'd be interested in other critiques of the paper.
Cheers
John Meudell
-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Rosen
Sent: 21 August 2006 10:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NICE briefing on Interventions Promoting Safe Cycling and Walking
This was sent to the cycle-planning email list - may be of interest to
people here too.
Paul
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)has
recently published an 'evidence review' of "Transport Interventions
Promoting Safe Cycling and Walking".
It is available to download from:
http://www.publichealth.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=346196
Quoting the introduction: "This evidence briefing aims to answer two
related research questions: What transport interventions are
effective in increasing active travel, specifically walking and
cycling? And what transport interventions are effective in increasing
the safety of walking and cycling?"
Interestingly, the authors report that the evidence is 'inconclusive'
on the effectiveness of publicity campaigns, engineering measures and
financial incentives in achieving a shift from walking to cycling.
They do however report positively on targeted behavioural change
programmes.
They comment on "the very limited amount of primary evaluation
research on the impact of developments and changes in transport
systems with respect to health and physical activity".
I'd be interested to know what others on this group think- it
would appear that there is still a lack of robust evidence on which
pro-cycling measures do actually make a difference?
Regards,
Marcus
|