Research Article
A Combined Impact-Process Evaluation of a Program Promoting Active Transport to School: Understanding the Factors That Shaped Program Effectiveness
Table 1
Active transport at pilot and comparison schools.
| | |
Inner suburban |
Outer suburban | | Year | Pilot | Comparison | Pilot | Comparison | | | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) |
| |
All active transport modes combined, observational counts |
| | 2006 | 113 (31.4) | 157 (40.8) | 96 (18.9) | 179 (24.6) | | 2007 | 140 (39.0) | 142 (36.8) | 167 (19.7) | 231 (29.8) | | Change | +7.6% | −4.0% | +0.8% | +5.2% | | value | 0.033 | 0.256 | 0.717 | 0.025 |
| |
Walking and cycling trips to school, grade 5 and 6 students, classroom Hands Up! surveys |
| | 2006 | 131 (43.2) | 206 (50.1) | 104 (26.6) | 164 (34.6) | | 2007 | 208 (52.0) | 226 (45.8) | 118 (25.0) | 217 (31.2) | | Change | +8.8% | −4.3% | −1.6% | −3.4% | | value | <0.0002 | 0.200 | 0.593 | 0.220 |
| |
Number of bicycles observed in school grounds |
| | 2006 | 8 | 6 | 26 | N/A* | | 2007 | 14 | 7 | 22 | 11 | | Change | +6 | +1 | −4 | N/A | | value | 0.192 | 0.783 | 0.015 | N/A |
|
|
Bike storage could not be located at this school at baseline.
Bold: .
|
