We also classified change using two complementary metrics: a detailed continuous measure of time spent walking or cycling; and a categorical measure based on the usual mode of travel, that might more accurately reflect habitual travel behaviour. Our findings may not be generalisable to other contexts where cycling Androgen Receptor Antagonist libraries is less prevalent.
Only 56% of participants provided data at follow-up, and although travel mode was not associated with dropout, the attrition of the cohort limits the generalisability of our observations. Our sample also contained a higher proportion of participants educated to degree level and a smaller proportion of obese adults than the population of Cambridgeshire (Office of National Statistics, 2011). While our measure of time spent walking and cycling improves on many instruments used previously (Ogilvie et al., 2004), we did not collect information
on the time spent walking or cycling on each day. We also lacked information on measures of socio-economic status or workplace facilities for cyclists, which may influence commuting behaviour. Relatively few participants had changed their usual travel mode(s), which may have limited our power to detect associations. Further investigation in larger samples with data collected at multiple time points over a longer time period would be warranted. In this longitudinal study, we found a lack of empirical support for many of the http://www.selleckchem.com/products/mi-773-sar405838.html putative predictors of travel behaviour change suggested by findings from cross-sectional studies. Only a few were found to be important; based on these findings, interventions to restrict workplace parking and provide convenient routes for cycling, convenient public transport and pleasant routes for walking to work appear to hold promise. Their effects on travel behaviour are, however, largely unknown and further studies are required to establish
these. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. The Commuting and Health in Cambridge study was developed by David Ogilvie, Simon Griffin, Andy Jones and Roger Mackett and initially funded under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British others Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The study is now funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme (project number 09/3001/06: see http://www.phr.nihr.ac.uk/funded_projects). David Ogilvie and Simon Griffin are supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme number MC_UP_1001/1]. Jenna Panter is now supported by an NIHR post-doctoral fellowship.