Next Article in Journal
Decoupling of the Growing Exports in Foreign Trade from the Declining Gross Exports of Embodied Energy
Next Article in Special Issue
Changing Primary School Children’s Engagement in Active School Travel Using Safe Routes to School Interventions: A Rapid Realist Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes (CompACT)—Malay Version
Previous Article in Special Issue
Active Commuting and Healthy Behavior among Adolescents in Neighborhoods with Varying Socioeconomic Status: The NESLA Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 15
10.3390/ijerph19159626
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of a School-Based Intervention on Children’s Cycling Knowledge, Mode of Commuting and Perceived Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

by
María Jesús Aranda-Balboa
1,
Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado
2,*,
Patricia Gálvez-Fernández
1,
Romina Saucedo-Araujo
1,
Daniel Molina-Soberanes
1,
Pablo Campos-Garzón
1,
Manuel Herrador-Colmenero
1,2,
Amador Jesús Lara-Sánchez
3,
Javier Molina-García
4,
Ana Queralt
5,
Diane Crone
6 and
Palma Chillón
1
1
PROFITH “PROmoting FITness and Health through Physical Activity” Research Group, Sport and Health University Research Institute (iMUDS), Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
2
Teacher Training Centre La Inmaculada, University of Granada, 18013 Granada, Spain
3
IDAF Research Group, Department of Didactics of Musical, Plastic and Corporal Expression, University of Jaen, 23071 Jaen, Spain
4
AFIPS Research Group, Department of Teaching of Musical, Visual and Corporal Expression, University of Valencia, 46021 Valencia, Spain
5
AFIPS Research Group, Department of Nursing, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
6
Centre for Health, Activity and Wellbeing Research, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff CF5 2YB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 9626; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159626
Submission received: 21 June 2022 / Revised: 22 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 5 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Promotion of Active Commuting to School)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The low rates of active commuting to/from school in Spain, especially by bike, and the wide range of cycling interventions in the literature show that this is a necessary research subject. The aims of this study were: (1) to assess the feasibility of a school-based cycling intervention program for adolescents, (2) to analyse the effectiveness of a school-based cycling intervention program on the rates of cycling and other forms of active commuting to/from school (ACS), and perceived barriers to active commuting in adolescents. A total of 122 adolescents from Granada, Jaén and Valencia (Spain) participated in the study. The cycling intervention group participated in a school-based intervention program to promote cycling to school during Physical Education (PE) sessions in order to analyse the changes in the dependent variables at baseline and follow up of the intervention. Wilcoxon, Signs and McNemar tests were undertaken. The association of the intervention program with commuting behaviour, and perceived barriers to commuting, were analysed by binary logistic regression. There were improvements in knowledge at follow-up and the cycling skill scores were medium-low. The rates of cycling to school and active commuting to/from school did not change, and only the “built environment (walk)” barrier increased in the cycling group at follow-up. School-based interventions may be feasibly effective tools to increase ACS behaviour, but it is necessary to implement a longer period and continue testing further school-based cycling interventions.

1. Introduction

Active commuting to and from school (ACS) can be a routine behaviour that enables pupils to be more physically active during their day by walking or cycling. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests cycling is a way to achieve daily physical activity (PA) recommendations in the youth population (i.e., 60 min daily of moderate-to-vigorous PA) [1]. Today, low rates of PA and high levels of sedentary behaviour among youth are increasing worldwide [2]. This situation is worrying, given that PA behaviour learned during childhood is transferred to adulthood [3,4]. Moreover, active commuting can provide other benefits, such as improvements in general health [5], including mental health [6], and improving academic and cognitive performance [7]. Furthermore, cycling as a mode of commuting may help to increase levels of cardiorespiratory fitness in young people, reduce obesity, and decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression, among other benefits [8,9,10]. In addition, the use of cycling as a mode of commuting may contribute to reduce the use of private cars or other motorized vehicles, avoiding associated health problems from poor air quality [11,12]. Moreover, PA-related health benefits can persist in adulthood, so the promotion of PA from early ages [13,14] is an important social function. The ideal environment identified to promote health-related behaviour, such as active commuting, has been found to be in the school context [15].
However, in recent decades the prevalence of active commuting to school has decreased in several countries, including the United States of America [16], Australia [17], China [18] and Spain [19,20]. Nowadays, cycling to school in some European countries, such as Spain and Ireland is still very low, at around the 2% [21,22]. In order to promote ACS, a variety of studies and programmes have been implemented to increase the prevalence of active commuting behaviour in the youth population [23,24]. In fact, several reviews on interventions promoting walking or cycling to school are available in the scientific literature [25,26,27], concluding that interventions are focused mainly on walking to school and in children. Consequently, Larouche et al. [26] suggested that the implementation of cycling interventions in secondary school settings are necessary to increase cycling and active commuting to schools. However, the literature on the effectiveness of several school-based interventions to promote cycling remains unclear [28,29,30]. For example, Mandic et al. [31] observed that cycle skills training improved children’s cycling-related knowledge and perceived cycling confidence but was not sufficient to impact on behaviour in terms of frequency or an increase rate of cycling to school. Conversely, Johnson et al. [32] found the opposite in their study developed in the UK, where ‘Bikeability’ training was associated with an increase of frequency of cycling. Even the study of Bungum et al. [33] with a one-day intervention, showed that ACS intervention may provide an opportunity to enhance the proportion of youth who commuted actively, although it was acknowledged that the intervention was necessary more than once a day to create a healthy habit.
This clear disparity in the efficacy of cycling training and its impact on active commuting behaviour, coupled with the low rates of cycling to school in Spain, underline that it is important to act in this context. Consequently, the aims of this study were to: (1) assess the feasibility of a school-based cycling intervention in adolescents, and (2) analyse the effectiveness of a school-based cycling intervention on the rates of cycling to school, active commuting to school and barriers to ACS from adolescents.

2. Methods

2.1. Design Study and Sample

In this school-based randomized control trial, a random sample of six public secondary schools from three cities (Granada, Jaen and Valencia) in Spain was selected to participate in this study. In each city, there was an intervention group (hereinafter called cycling group) and a control group. The data were collected between 2019 and 2020 as part of the PACO (Pedalea y Anda al Cole/Cycling and Walk to School) Study. The PACO Study examines ACS in Spanish children and adolescents and several aims to develop interventions to promote adolescents’ ACS. The complete information of the recruitment, randomization process and procedure has been published elsewhere [34]. The PACO Study was approved by the Review Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University of Granada (Reference: 162/CEIH/2016).
The sample initially recruited 150 adolescents (Figure 1) who were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After application of the inclusion criteria, the final sample included in this study was 122 adolescents in the per-protocol analyses (cycling group, n = 60; and control group, n = 62) across the three cities. The cycling group participated in a school-based intervention to promote cycling to school within Physical Education (PE) sessions. In the current study, the inclusion criteria were: (a) adolescents from the third grade of secondary education (ages 14–15) (b) adolescents having completed both baseline and follow-up intervention questionnaires, and (c) those having attended at least 70% (three sessions of four) of the entire intervention (i.e., cycling group).

2.2. School-Based Intervention

The protocol for the school-based intervention used in this study has been published elsewhere [34,35], and is available online (http://profith.ugr.es/pages/investigacion/recursos/manualbici/, accessed on 3 August 2022). In addition, a brief explanation is presented in the section “Description of the School-Based Intervention”.

2.2.1. Description of the School-Based Intervention

The school-based intervention is based in the Bikeability methodology [36]. The intervention was conducted in four PE sessions during one month (1 class per week).
➢
1°. Theoretical session (60 min). The session included awareness about the benefits and usefulness of cycling as a mode of commuting in the city, and learning basic road safety rules, cycling safety equipment for both the rider and the bike, and cycling hand signaling in an urban context.
➢
2°. Closed circuit session (120 min. This session took place in the playground of the school in a traffic-free space. The session included correct helmet fitting, bicycle safety check before starting to ride, and fundamental cycling skills of starting off and pedaling, breaking safely, changing gears and hand signaling to change directions.
➢
3°. Urban circuit session (120 min). The participants used the knowledge and the skills learned in previous sessions in a real traffic context. The session included starting from the side of road (kerb), stopping on the side of road (kerb), overtaking a parked or slower-moving vehicle, lane changing, turning right and left and crossing a roundabout.
➢
4°. “Bicycle’s party” (120 min). The students had the opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned in previous sessions by becoming the teachers of a first grade secondary education group. The session included a circuit with several exercises based on knowledge and fundamental cycling skills learned in the previous sessions about urban cycling.

2.2.2. Pilot Phase of the School-Based Intervention

First, a pilot phase was undertaken in the city of Granada, within PE sessions in a small sample of 14 students (not included in the RCT sample) from the third grade of secondary education in a private secondary school. This pilot phase studied the implementation of the intervention using different measures regarding the feasibility and the barriers perceived by the students, including: (1) observations of the research team during the session; (2) an interview with the PE teacher after the pilot intervention; (3) a focus-group with the students performed after the pilot intervention, and (4) a self-reported student questionnaire with information regarding the measures of enjoyment, usefulness, and potential improvements after each session.
The students stated that the third session (urban circuit session) was most liked, although they were afraid of the last activity (e.g., how to cross a roundabout safely). The PE teacher reported an intention to incorporate the intervention into the PE high school programme. In addition, he suggested adding more sessions to teach students who might be less experienced in the use of a bike and cycling on road with a bike. Both students and the PE teacher recommended that the fourth session (bicycle party) could be better organized regarding the planning of activities and their timing.

2.3. Measures

Several measures were used to address the objectives which were implemented at baseline, during the intervention, and at follow-up. The complete information has been described in detail elsewhere [35].
The measures used to address the feasibility of the school-based intervention were cycling knowledge, cycling skills (in a traffic-free area and on-road), and enjoyment, usefulness and improvements.
-
Cycling knowledge. A self-reported questionnaire was completed by participants in the classroom at baseline and follow-up. The questions were about route safety rules, cycling hand signaling, and traffic. It consisted of a 20-item questionnaire with multiple-choice answers with three options and only one correct answer [35]. The score for each participant represented the number of correct answers.
-
Cycling skills in a traffic-free area. A cycling ad-hoc observational checklist in a traffic-free situation was completed by participants once during the intervention. The test was about cycling skills, including bike and hand signaling safely. It was composed of an 18-item checklist with dichotomy answers (yes/no), ranging from 0 points (lowest score indicating “It does not have the capacity to carry out the urban circuit”) to 18 points (highest score indicating “Unbeatable capabilities for the street circuit”). Further details about the observational checklists can be found in a previous publication [35].
-
Cycling skills on-road. A cycling ad-hoc observational checklist on road traffic situations was completed by participants once during the intervention. The tests were about cycling skills and signaling safely. It was a 22-item checklist with dichotomy answers (yes/no), ranging from 0 points (lowest score indicating “Low Cycling Capabilities”) to 22 points (highest score indicating “Expert Cyclist”).
-
Enjoyment, usefulness and improvements. A short questionnaire was completed by participants at the end of each of the four sessions during the intervention [35]. There were two questions about enjoyment and usefulness with a Likert scale of 5 points (5, “Totally agree”; 1, “Totally disagree”), and 1 question with an open answer regarding potential improvements.
The measures used to analyse the effect of the intervention were “active commuting to/from school” and “perceived barriers to active commuting to school”. These were collected at baseline and follow up intervention:
-
Active commuting to/from school. A self-reported questionnaire (“Mode and Frequency of Commuting to and from School” questionnaire [37,38]) was completed by participants in the classroom at baseline and follow-up. The questions were about the latest weekly patterns of commuting to and from school. The possible answers were walking, cycling, car, motorbike, school bus, public bus, metro/train or other; only one option could be chosen. The participants were categorized as “active” if they reported walking or cycling as their usual mode of commuting and as “passive” if they answered car, motorbike, school bus, public bus, metro/train.
-
Perceived barriers to active commuting to school. A self-reported questionnaire “BATACE’s” (“Barreras en el Transporte Activo al Centro Educativo”, Spanish acronym) questionnaire [39,40] was completed by participants in the classroom at baseline and follow-up. The questions were about the barriers perceived concerning active commuting to school. The possible answers assessed using a Likert scale of 4 points to answer (4, “Totally agree”—higher perception of the barrier—; 1, “Totally disagree”—lower perception of the barrier—). A global index of the perceived barriers was calculated by the mean of the perceived barriers.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The descriptive data of the participants are presented as frequencies (and percentages) for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables. Normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Since the results showed that the age and cycling knowledge did not follow the normal distribution, these two variables were analyzed using non-parametric tests.
Differences between groups were calculated using Student’s T test and the U-Mann Whitney test for continuous variables (parametric and non-parametric test), and the chi-square test for categorical variables.
To analyze the changes in the dependent variables at baseline and follow-up of the intervention, differences were observed a comparison test of related samples, such as the Student T-test and non-parametric tests in those variables with free distribution (Wilcoxon, Signs and McNemar), both separately in the control group and in the cycling group. To establish the association between the dependent variables and the intervention, binary logistic regression models were performed. Differences at baseline and follow-up intervention were established as dependent variables and the intervention group variable was established as the independent variable for the analysis.
All analyses were undertaken using the statistical package SPSS for Windows version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and with a level of statistical significance of p < 0.05.

3. Results

The descriptive data of participants are presented in Table 1. The sample included 122 students, 49.5% boys, 50.5% girls) and their mean age was 14.26 ± 0.44 years old. A total of 66.3% of the students owned a bike and 96.8% of them did not cycle to/from school. The children’s mode of commuting to/from school was mostly active, and a percentage of 81.6% and 52.3% were active in the cycling and control group respectively (p = 0.002).
Figure 2 shows session attendance for the cycling group (n = 60). Mean attendance (number of participants) at the sessions was n = 47.5 out of 60.
Table 2 shows the differences in the perceived barriers between the cycling and control group at baseline. The results showed that the cycling group perceived fewer barriers to active commuting to school than the control group, although there were no differences between groups (p > 0.05).
Figure 3 presents the results of cycling knowledge, showing improvements of 2.02 points at follow-up compared to baseline in the cycling group (n = 44) (p < 0.001), 20 being the maximum score.
The Figure 4 presents the descriptive data of the cycling skills including scores for cycling skills in a traffic-free area (12.52 ± 3.54) and on-road cycling skills (10.94 ± 6.89), in the cycling group (n = 44).
Figure 5 shows data concerning enjoyment and usefulness of every session for the cycling group (n = 60). The mean of enjoyment was 4.60, and the mean of usefulness of the sessions was 4.78, both from a scale of 5 points.
Table 3 presents the changes in the mode of commuting to/from school and children’s perceived barriers to active commuting to school at baseline and follow-up for both groups (i.e., control and cycling). The ranking provides data on the comparison of participants at baseline and follow-up. The results, stratified by group, showed the negative ranks when the values at follow-up were higher than at baseline. The positive ranks indicated that the values at follow-up were lower than at baseline and a tie showed that there were no changes at follow-up, i.e., the same mode of commuting was maintained in the participants after the intervention. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the changes of the mode of commuting between the baseline and follow-up. Regarding the barriers, there was only a change between the baseline and follow-up in the built environment (walk) barrier (p = 0.002) in the cycling group, with a positive rank of 4, negative rank of 17 and tie of 19. There were no significant differences in the change of barriers within the control group.
Table 4 shows three logistic regression models to observe the relationship between the intervention and the dependent variables. Changes in the mode of commuting (active/passive) at baseline and follow-up were not associated with the school-based intervention (Odds Ratio = 0.6, Confidence Interval = 0.13–2.70). Regarding perceived barriers to ACS, changes in the perceived barriers at baseline and follow-up (global index) (Odds Ratio = 0.56, CI = 0.21–1.47) and changes in the item “Built environment (walk)” at baseline and follow-up were not associated with the school based-intervention (Odds Ratio = 0.4, CI = 0.12–1.49) p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The findings of this study showed that: (1) the school-based intervention might be feasible in the school context since cycling knowledge improved after the school-based intervention, the scores of cycling skills were medium-low and the attendance, enjoyment and usefulness of the sessions were high; (2) rates of cycling to school and active commuting to/from school did not change after the school-based intervention, and only the “Built environment (walk)” barrier in the cycling group was more perceived on follow-up. No association was found between the participation in the school-based intervention with the rates of cycling or active commuting to school and the perception of barriers to active commuting to school.
The present findings indicate that the proposed school-based intervention is feasible and implementable in the school context, and appropriate for use by teachers and researchers. Actually, cycling knowledge improved in the cycling group after the school-based intervention. Previous studies [41,42,43] showed similar results, where children improved their cycling knowledge scores after a cycle education program. In fact, another intervention study in the USA [44] found that a cycling program could improve up to 4 points from a maximum of 13 points on average in terms of cycling knowledge. It is necessary to emphasize that the fact of improving cycling knowledge does not necessarily result in a change in cycling behaviour [43], although it could be an incentive or address a barrier for people to cycle to school, as their confidence could be increased. In addition, the participants in the current study concluded that they liked the sessions and found them useful. The students’ enjoyment increases their learning potential, so it is crucial to develop interventions that are highly satisfactory and enjoyable [43]. It is necessary to highlight the importance of designing a useful cycling program for the students because it represents an opportunity to increase cycling to school [45]. We must mention that in the current school-based intervention there was only one data measurement for cycling skills during the school-based intervention, including both cycling skills assessments in a traffic-free area and in road traffic, but they were not comparable to each other. Consequently, we cannot determine if there was an improvement in cycling skills at follow up of the intervention, as other studies reported, indicating cycling skills improvements after a school-based interventions [21,43,46]. In addition, we must highlight that few participants in the current study did not use their own bicycle for the school-based intervention, because they did not have a bicycle, or it was not in a suitable condition for use. The research team and the school provided bicycles to the participants. If they could not access a bicycle of a suitable standard to cycle to school, this might affect the association between enhanced cycling skills and a change in the behaviour [47]. Mitchie et al. [48] suggested that to adopt and maintain a behaviour, the individual must have capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) for behaviour (B) (COM-B model of behaviour) to change. This intervention increased capability and motivation, but if participants did not have a bike they had no opportunity to cycle and would not change their behaviour.
There was no change in the rates of cycling and active mode of commuting to/from school at baseline and follow-up in both cycling and control groups. A previous school-based intervention of four sessions per week did not find change the children’s cycling to school after an intervention about cycling skills [29]. Similar results were found in the study of Groesz et al. [41] from Texas, which included 15 PE sessions, where increased cycling to school was not found but there was an increase in recreational cycling [41]. However, the study of Groesz et al. [41], found that cycling to school did not increase even though there was improved confidence in cycling [41]. In addition, the studies of Hatfield et al. [42] (eight sessions), Jones et al. [21] (five sessions) and Montenegro et al., [46] (eight sessions), showed increases in cycling to school after a school-based intervention. A potential explanation for these results may be that it is important to involve families in the interventions. It has been shown that family involvement in this type of interventions can be effective in promoting children’s PA [49]. The children’s cycling to school can be determined by parental attitudes and social norms, and household travel schedules [50,51]. However, previous study showed no increase tin he rates of cycling to school even when parents were involved [29], indicating that there are a broad range of factors that may underlie changes in the mode of commuting, such as the lack of cycle parking at schools [52,53] or the built environmental attributes of the school neighborhood [54]. It is well known that changing behaviours in our lifestyles is complex [55], and may be even more complicated in potentially new and dangerous situations such as cycling in an urban context. In addition, starting to cycle to school may require specific circumstances, such as both adolescents’ and parents’ consent, a suitable bike to cycle, living a bikeable distance between school and home and a safe route, among others.
In relation to changing the perceived barriers to active commuting to school, the results showed that there was only a significant change in the cycling group in terms of the built environment for walking. Consequently, the cycling group increased the perception of built environment (walk) as a barrier to actively commute. Regarding the other perceived barriers, there were no differences. A potential reason might be that the school-based intervention did not focus on the change of the perception of barriers directly. It was more focused on the cycling knowledge, cycling skills and cycling behaviour, and, consequently, improving the barriers maybe require another approach [29]. Despite this, it was expected that the perceived barriers would be reduced as the participants tested real situations in the school-based intervention (i.e., stay and manage traffic situations perceiving risks). However, the perception of the built environment as a barrier to walking to school increased. This may be caused by increase in awareness of the importance of a good built environment to safety commute to school [56]. It seems necessary to design interventions that focus attention on reducing barriers to active commuting. In the literature, we find that adolescents perceive different barriers from their parents [57], and yet parents are the main decision makers concerning commuting of their children [58]. In the case of parents, they reported barriers to active commuting as the distance between home and school, the built environment, traffic safety, crime-related safety, social support and physical and motivation barriers [59]. Similarly, children also reported convenience in addition to those identified by parents [60].
The topic of designing and implementing interventions to promote active commuting is still relatively new, especially in Spain, and it is worth keep elaborating and conducting cycling interventions to support a change in commuting behaviour, taking in account that a wide range of factors from an ecological perspective may have an influence (e.g., environmental, psychosocial or personal factors). It is also important to acknowledge the influence of context and culture [61] and social and cultural norms in a community. Clearly, it would be easier to develop school-based interventions in countries where there is already a “bicycle culture” and attitudes toward using bicycles is higher than in Spain [62,63]. For instance, other countries have specific national programs where children and young people learn to cycle safely, for example Belgium [29,64], the UK [65] and in Ireland [66]. In these countries cycling training in elementary/primary schools is a common approach. Consequently, interventions in countries where the cycling to school rates are as low, such as Spain, should focus at first instance on increasing knowledge, skills, and students and parents’ barriers towards active commuting to schools, and considering the role of the school in promoting active commuting as part of a wider agenda on a whole-school approach to physical activity promotion. Additionally, with the rise of physical activity interventions using co-production [67], there is an opportunity to co-create an intervention with and for young people to promote active commuting to school as a potential way forward to assist with these challenges. The interventions must be attractive to young people, since enjoyable interventions can be useful for participants to learn skills [43], and be focused on increasing the rate of cycling to school [45]. The adoption of co-production practices to develop and design interventions will contribute to addressing these factors.
This study has several limitations. First, we must mention some limitations within the intervention programme, such as the short duration, the lack of family involvement, the lack of a second assessment of cycling skills to compare these results, and the lack of the cycling knowledge in the control group. Moreover, the proposal was not included in the specific didactic unit of the curricula of the physical education teachers. Regarding the strengths of the study, the delivery of the intervention in school PE sessions (rather than an extra) and the design of the school-based intervention based on a randomized controlled trial performing in three cities with different contextual characteristics, must be highlighted.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that a school-based intervention might be a feasible approach to address active commuting in the school context, but some changes and modifications should be made. These are detailed in recommendations for future research and practice. Recommendations for the future are to continue with these promising interventions but include the participation of the young people, their families and other key stakeholders such as school management, local travel officers and policy makers to co-create multi-component interventions that address not only behaviour and knowledge, but challenge social norms, attitudes and physical infrastructure required to change behaviour in active commuting. In addition, a future effective initiative may include the promotion of cycling to school as a compulsory content in the curricula of Physical Education within national education policies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.J.A.-B., F.J.H.-D. and P.C.; funding acquisition, P.C.; methodology, M.J.A.-B., F.J.H.-D., M.H.-C., J.M.-G., A.Q., D.C. and P.C.; formal analysis, M.J.A.-B.; data curation, M.J.A.-B., P.G.-F., R.S.-A., D.M.-S. and P.C.-G.; writing original draft preparation, M.J.A.-B., F.J.H.-D. and P.C.; writing—review and editing, M.J.A.-B., F.J.H.-D., P.G.-F., R.S.-A., D.M.-S., P.C.-G., M.H.-C., A.J.L.-S., J.M.-G., A.Q., D.C. and P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (DEP2016–75598-R, MINECO/FEDER, UE). Additionally, this study took place thanks to funding from the University of Granada, Plan Propio de Investigación 2016, Excellence actions: Units of Excellence; Unit of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES), and by the Junta de Andalucía, Consejeria de Conocimiento, Investigación y Universidades and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), “R&D research staff contract, within the framework of the Spanish National Youth Guarantee” funded by the Junta de Andalucía and the European Social Fund, and two “FPU” Predoctoral Research Fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Universities (grant number: FPU18/04251; grant number: FPU17/03934).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The PACO Study was approved by the Review Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University of Granada (Reference: 162/CEIH/2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants.

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to the schools, children and families that collaborated in this study. We are grateful to Vivian Benítez Hidalgo for her assistance with statistics analysis. This study is part of a PhD thesis of the Education program of the University of Granada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bull, F.C.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1451–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. WHO. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dobbins, M.; Husson, H.; DeCorby, K.; LaRocca, R.L. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 2013, CD007651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Telama, R.; Yang, X.; Leskinen, E.; Kankaanpää, A.; Hirvensalo, M.; Tammelin, T.; Viikari, J.S.A.; Raitakari, O.T. Tracking of Physical Activity from Early Childhood through Youth into Adulthood. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014, 46, 955–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jalali-Farahani, S.; Amiri, P.; Karimi, M.; Vahedi-Notash, G.; Amirshekari, G.; Azizi, F. Perceived social support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Tehranian adults: Tehran lipid and glucose study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2018, 16, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Berchicci, M.; Pontifex, M.B.; Drollette, E.S.; Pesce, C.; Hillman, C.H.; Di Russo, F. From cognitive motor preparation to visual processing: The benefits of childhood fitness to brain health. Neuroscience 2015, 298, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Conde, M.A.; Sánchez, P.T. La actividad física, la educación física y la condición física pueden estar relacionadas con el rendimiento académico y cognitivo en jóvenes. Revisión sistemática. Arch. Med. Deporte Rev. Fed. Esp. Med. Deporte Confed. Iberoam. Med. Deporte 2015, 32, 100–109. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A.K.; Riiser, A. Cycling and cardiovascular disease risk factors including body composition, blood lipids and cardiorespiratory fitness analysed as continuous variables: Part 2—Systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ramírez-Vélez, R.; García-Hermoso, A.; Agostinis-Sobrinho, C.; Mota, J.; Santos, R.; Correa-Bautista, J.E.; Amaya-Tambo, D.C.; Villa-González, E. Cycling to School and Body Composition, Physical Fitness, and Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents. J. Pediatrics 2017, 188, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Weggemans, R.M.; Backx, F.J.G.; Borghouts, L.; Chinapaw, M.; Hopman, M.T.E.; Koster, A.; Kremers, S.; van Loon, L.J.C.; May, A.; Mosterd, A.; et al. The 2017 Dutch Physical Activity Guidelines. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Van Kempen, E.; Casas, M.; Pershagen, G.; Foraster, M. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Xia, T.; Nitschke, M.; Zhang, Y.; Shah, P.; Crabb, S.; Hansen, A. Traffic-related air pollution and health co-benefits of alternative transport in Adelaide, South Australia. Environ. Int. 2015, 74, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Schönbach, D.M.I.; Altenburg, T.; Chinapaw, M.; Marques, A.; Demetriou, Y. Strategies and effects of promising school-based interventions to promote active school transportation by bicycle among children and adolescents: Protocol for a systematic review. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Telama, R.; Yang, X.; Viikari, J.; Välimäki, I.; Wanne, O.; Raitakari, O. Physical activity from childhood to adulthood: A 21-year tracking study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sevil, J.; García-González, L.; Abós, Á.; Generelo, E.; Aibar, A. Can High Schools Be an Effective Setting to Promote Healthy Lifestyles? Effects of a Multiple Behavior Change Intervention in Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2019, 64, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McDonald, N.C. Active Transportation to School: Trends among U.S. Schoolchildren, 1969–2001. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2007, 32, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Van der Ploeg, H.P.; Merom, D.; Corpuz, G.; Bauman, A.E. Trends in Australian children traveling to school 1971–2003: Burning petrol or carbohydrates? Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Yang, Y.; Hong, X.; Gurney, J.G.; Wang, Y. Active Travel to and from School among School-Age Children during 1997–2011 and Associated Factors in China. J. Phys. Act. Health 2017, 14, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chillón, P.; Gottrand, F.; Ortega, F.B.; González-Gross, M.; Ruiz, J.R.; Ward, D.S.; De Bourdeaudhui, I.; Moreno, L.A.; Martínez-Gómez, D.; Castillo, M.J.; et al. Active commuting and physical activity in adolescents from Europe: Results from the HELENA study. Pediatric Exerc. Sci. 2011, 23, 207–217. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gálvez-Fernández, P.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Esteban-Cornejo, I.; Castro-Piñero, J.; Molina-García, J.; Queralt, A.; Aznar, S.; Abarca-Sos, A.; González-Cutre, D.; Vidal-Conti, J.; et al. Active commuting to school among 36,781 Spanish children and adolescents: A temporal trend study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 914–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, P. The Impact of Cycle Skills Training on Skills, Confidence, Attitudes and Rates of Cycling. Master’s Thesis, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chillón, P.; Martínez-Gómez, D.; Ortega, F.B.; Pérez-López, I.J.; Díaz, L.E.; Veses, A.M.; Veiga, O.L.; Marcos, A.; Delgado-Fernández, M. Six-Year Trend in Active Commuting to School in Spanish Adolescents. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2012, 20, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mammen, G. School Travel Planning in Canada: A Holistic Examination of Program Impact on Active School Travel. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. McDonald, N.C.; Steiner, R.L.; Lee, C.; Smith, T.R.; Zhu, X.; Yang, Y. Impact of the Safe Routes to School Program on Walking and Bicycling. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2014, 80, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chillón, P.; Evenson, K.R.; Vaughn, A.; Ward, D.S. A systematic review of interventions for promoting active transportation to school. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Larouche, R.; Mammen, G.; Rowe, D.A.; Faulkner, G. Effectiveness of active school transport interventions: A systematic review and update. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Villa-González, E.; Barranco-Ruiz, Y.; Evenson, K.R.; Chillón, P. Systematic review of interventions for promoting active school transport. Prev. Med. 2018, 111, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Crawford, S.; Garrard, J.A. Combined Impact-Process Evaluation of a Program Promoting Active Transport to School: Understanding the Factors that Shaped Program Effectiveness. J. Environ. Public Health 2013, 2013, 816961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ducheyne, F.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Lenoir, M.; Cardon, G. Effects of a cycle training course on children’s cycling skills and levels of cycling to school. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 67, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Goodman, A.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Ogilvie, D. Impact of offering cycle training in schools upon cycling behaviour: A natural experimental study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Mandic, S.; Flaherty, C.; Pocock, T.; Kek, C.C.; McArthur, S.; Ergler, C.; Chillón, P.; Bengoechea, E. Effects of cycle skills training on children’s cycling-related knowledge, confidence and behaviours. J. Transp. Health 2018, 8, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Johnson, R.; Frearson, M.; Hewson, P. Can bicycle training for children increase active travel? Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain. 2016, 169, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bungum, T.J.; Clark, S.; Aguilar, B. The Effect of an Active Transport to School Intervention at a Suburban Elementary School. Am. J. Health Educ. 2014, 45, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chillón, P.; Gálvez-Fernández, P.; Huertas-Delgado, F.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Barranco-Ruiz, Y.; Villa-González, E.; Aranda-Balboa, M.; Saucedo-Araujo, R.; Campos-Garzón, P.; Molina-Soberanes, D.; et al. A School-Based Randomized Controlled Trial to Promote Cycling to School in Adolescents: The PACO Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ruiz, C.S.; Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Gálvez-Fernández, P.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Garzón, C.P. Proyecto de innovación educativa para la eso: “Manual de intervención bikeability”. Habilid. Mot. Rev. Cienc. Act. Física Y Deporte 2019, 52, 12–38. [Google Scholar]
  36. Goodman, A.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Ogilvie, D. Cycle training for children: Which schools offer it and who takes part? J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Chillón, P.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Migueles, J.H.; Cabanas-Sánchez, V.; Fernández-Santos, J.R.; Veiga, Ó.L.; Castro-Piñero, J. Convergent validation of a questionnaire to assess the mode and frequency of commuting to and from school. Scand. J. Public Health 2017, 45, 612–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Segura-Díaz, J.M.; Rojas-Jiménez, Á.; Barranco-Ruiz, Y.; Murillo-Pardo, B.; Saucedo-Araujo, R.G.; Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Villa-González, E.; Chillón, P. Feasibility and Reliability of a Questionnaire to Assess the Mode, Frequency, Distance and Time of Commuting to and from School: The PACO Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Forman, H.; Kerr, J.; Norman, G.J.; Saelens, B.E.; Durant, N.H.; Harris, S.K.; Sallis, J.F. Reliability and validity of destination-specific barriers to walking and cycling for youth. Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Molina-García, J.; Queralt, A.; Estevan, I.; Álvarez, O.; Castillo, I. Perceived barriers to active commuting to school: Reliability and validity of a scale. Gac. Sanit. 2016, 30, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Groesz, L.M. A Conceptual Evaluation of a School-Based Utilitarian Exercise Model. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hatfield, J.; Boufous, S.; Eveston, T. An evaluation of the effects of an innovative school-based cycling education program on safety and participation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 127, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Van Lierop, D.; Bebronne, M.; El-Geneidy, A. Evaluating a bicycle education program for children: Findings from Montreal, Canada. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 January 2016; Volume 258, pp. 23–33. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lachapelle, U.; Noland, R.B.; Von Hagen, L.A. Teaching children about bicycle safety: An evaluation of the New Jersey Bike School program. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 52, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sersli, S.; DeVries, D.; Gislason, M.; Scott, N.; Winters, M. Changes in bicycling frequency in children and adults after bicycle skills training: A scoping review. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 123, 170–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Montenegro, S. Evaluating Cycle Kids: A Bicycling and Nutrition Health Promotion Curriculum Delivered as a Component of School Based Physical Education. Master’s Thesis, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ducheyne, F.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Lenoir, M.; Spittaels, H.; Cardon, G. Children’s cycling skills: Development of a test and determination of individual and environmental correlates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 50, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Michie, S.; Van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Lin, E.-Y.; Witten, K.; Oliver, M.; Carroll, P.; Asiasiga, L.; Badland, H.; Parker, K. Social and built-environment factors related to children’s independent mobility: The importance of neighbourhood cohesion and connectedness. Health Place 2017, 46, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ahern, S.M.; Arnott, B.; Chatterton, T.; de Nazelle, A.; Kellar, I.; McEachan, R. Understanding parents’ school travel choices: A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. J. Transp. Health 2017, 4, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mammen, G.; Faulkner, G.; Buliung, R.; Lay, J. Understanding the drive to escort: A cross-sectional analysis examining parental attitudes towards children’s school travel and independent mobility. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. De Meester, F.; Van Dyck, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Cardon, G. Parental perceived neighborhood attributes: Associations with active transport and physical activity among 10–12 year old children and the mediating role of independent mobility. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lu, W.; McKyer, E.L.J.; Lee, C.; Wang, S.; Goodson, P.; Ory, M.G. Active Commuting to School: A Test of a Modified Integrative Model. Am. J. Health Behav. 2014, 38, 900–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Molina-García, J.; Campos, S.; García-Massó, X.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Gálvez-Fernández, P.; Molina-Soberanes, D.; Queralt, A.; Chillón, P. Different neighborhood walkability indexes for active commuting to school are necessary for urban and rural children and adolescents. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kwasnicka, D.; Dombrowski, S.U.; White, M.; Sniehotta, F. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 277–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Broberg, A.; Sarjala, S. School travel mode choice and the characteristics of the urban built environment: The case of Helsinki, Finland. Transp. Policy 2015, 37, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Chillón, P.; Saucedo-Araujo, R.G.; Molina-García, J.; Huertas-Delgado, F.J. Children and Parental Barriers to Active Commuting to School: A Comparison Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Giles-Corti, B.; Kelty, S.F.; Zubrick, S.R.; Villanueva, K.P. Encouraging Walking for Transport and Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: How Important is the Built Environment? Sports Med. 2009, 39, 995–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Huertas-Delgado, F.J.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Cardon, G.; Chillón, P. Parental barriers to active transport to school: A systematic review. Int. J. Public Health 2020, 65, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lu, W.; McKyer, E.L.J.; Lee, C.; Goodson, P.; Ory, M.G.; Wang, S. Perceived barriers to children’s active commuting to school: A systematic review of empirical, methodological and theoretical evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Shoveller, J.; Viehbeck, S.; Di Ruggiero, E.; Greyson, D.; Thomson, K.; Knight, R. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit. Public Health 2016, 26, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aldred, R.; Jungnickel, K. Why culture matters for transport policy: The case of cycling in the UK. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 34, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Klinger, T.; Kenworthy, J.R.; Lanzendorf, M. Dimensions of urban mobility cultures—A comparison of German cities. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 31, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ducheyne, F.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Lenoir, M.; Cardon, G. Does a cycle training course improve cycling skills in children? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 59, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sustrans. Bike It. 2013. Available online: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/ (accessed on 10 June 2022).
  66. Travel NTAaGS. Toolkit for School Travel; National Transport Authority of United Kingdom, 2011; Available online: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NTA-Toolkit-for-School-Travel-Final11.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022).
  67. Buckley, B.J.R.; Thijssen, D.H.J.; Murphy, R.C.; Graves, L.E.F.; Whyte, G.; Gillison, F.B.; Crone, D.; Wilson, P.M.; Watson, P.M. Making a move in exercise referral: Co-development of a physical activity referral scheme. J. Public Health 2018, 40, e586–e593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 09626 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of participants.
Figure 1. Flow chart of participants.
Ijerph 19 09626 g001
Ijerph 19 09626 g002 550
Figure 2. Attendance of the cycling intervention.
Figure 2. Attendance of the cycling intervention.
Ijerph 19 09626 g002
Ijerph 19 09626 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes on the cycling knowledge at baseline and at follow up on the cycling group.
Figure 3. Changes on the cycling knowledge at baseline and at follow up on the cycling group.
Ijerph 19 09626 g003
Ijerph 19 09626 g004 550
Figure 4. Descriptive data of the cycling skills in the cycling group.
Figure 4. Descriptive data of the cycling skills in the cycling group.
Ijerph 19 09626 g004
Ijerph 19 09626 g005 550
Figure 5. Enjoyment and usefulness of the cycling intervention. The bold line indicates the mean.
Figure 5. Enjoyment and usefulness of the cycling intervention. The bold line indicates the mean.
Ijerph 19 09626 g005
Table
Table 1. Descriptive data of the participants from the cycling and control group at baseline (intention to treat data).
Table 1. Descriptive data of the participants from the cycling and control group at baseline (intention to treat data).
All
(n = 122)		Cycling Group
(n = 60)		Control Group
(n = 62)		p
Children’s age M ± (SD)14.26 ± 0.4414.20 ± 0.4014.32 ± 0.470.209
Children’s gender n (%)
                   Boy48 (49.5)28 (54.9)20 (43.5)0.261
                   Girl49 (50.5)23 (45.1)26 (56.5)
Own bike n (%)63 (66.3)28 (57.1)35 (76.1)0.008
Commuting to/from school of children n (%)
Active63 (67.7)40 (81.6)23 (52.3)0.002
Passive30 (32.3)9 (18.4)21 (47.7)
Cycling to/from school n (%)
Cycling3 (3.2)3 (6.1)-0.950
Do not cycling90 (96.8)46 (93.9)44 (100)
Data in bold = Significant changes; p-value < 0.05; M ± (SD): Mean ± standard deviation; n (%): sample (percentage).
Table
Table 2. Descriptive data of perceived barriers by intervention group at baseline.
Table 2. Descriptive data of perceived barriers by intervention group at baseline.
Perceived Barriers to ACS n (%)Cycling GroupControl Groupp
Totally DisagreeDisagreeAgreeTotally AgreeTotally DisagreeDisagreeAgreeTotally Agree
Distance27 (58.7)8 (17.4)3 (6.5)8 (17.4)19 (41.3)7 (15.2)8 (17.4)12 (26.1)0.210
Safety Traffic20 (40.8)12 (24.5)9 (18.4)8 (16.3)18 (39.1)13 (28.3)9 (19.6)6 (13)0.953
Convenience19 (38.8)13 (26.5)11 (22.4)6 (12.2)10 (21.7)14 (30.4)14 (30.4)8 (17.4)0.336
Built Environment16 (32.7)15 (30.6)12 (24.5)6 (12.2)22 (48.9)8 (17.8)8 (17.8)7 (15.6)0.285
Crime Related Safety21 (42.9)18 (36.7)8 (16.3)2 (4.1)17 (37)24 (52.2)5 (10.9)-0.275
Weather37 (75.5)5 (10.2)4 (8.2)3 (6.1)30 (65.2)7 (15.2)7 (15.2)2 (4.3)0.574
Physical and Motivational Barriers6 (12.2)13 (26.5)12 (24.5)18 (36.7)9 (19.6)11 (23.9)10 (21.7)16 (34.8)0.808
Built Environment (Walk)27 (55.1)12 (24.5)8 (16.3)2 (4.1)22 (47.8)14 (30.4)9 (19.6)1 (2.2)0.810
Social Support (Walk)26 (54.2)4 (8.3)7 (14.6)11 (22.9)18 (40)8 (17.8)7 (15.6)12 (26.7)0.434
Physical and Motivational Barriers (Walk)22 (44.9)17 (34.7)5 (10.2)5 (10.2)23 (50)10 (21.7)6 (13)7 (15.2)0.538
Built Environment (Bike)11 (22.4)25 (51)11 (22.4)2 (4.1)16 (34.8)18 (39.1)12 (26.1)-0.260
Social Support (Bike)26 (54.2)4 (8.3)7 (14.6)11 (22.9)18 (40)8 (17.8)7 (15.6)12 (26.7)0.434
Physical and Motivational Barriers (Bike)22 (44.9)17 (34.7)5 (10.2)5 (10.2)23 (50)10 (21.7)6 (13)7 (15.2)0.538
Global index1 (2.2)25 (55.6)17 (37.8)2 (4.4)3 (6.8)18 (40.9)21 (47.7)2 (4.5)0.466
n (%): sample (percentage).
Table
Table 3. Changes in the mode of commuting to/from school and children’s perceived barriers to ACS at baseline and at follow up of the school-based intervention for both groups (per protocol data).
Table 3. Changes in the mode of commuting to/from school and children’s perceived barriers to ACS at baseline and at follow up of the school-based intervention for both groups (per protocol data).
Cycling GroupControl Group
MODE OF COMMUTING
Positive RanksNegative RanksTiespPositive RanksNegative RanksTiesp
Active commuting to/from school1319280.3771019330.137
Cycling to/from school31560.62522581.000
Cycling GroupControl Group
PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO ACS
Positive RanksNegative RanksTiespPositive RanksNegative RanksTiesp
Distance810190.8211312170.501
Safety Traffic1612120.9071314150.861
Convenience1111180.5731513150.674
Built Environment1111180.8131012190.892
Crime Related Safety916150.252812230.437
Weather619140.086912210.387
Physical and Motivational Barriers179130.1001210200.829
Built Environment (Walk)417190.002915190.178
Social Support (Walk)1110170.6851714100.530
Physical and Motivational Barriers (Walk)1115140.3021214170.784
Built Environment (Bike)817150.066914200.263
Social Support (Bike)1110170.6851714100.530
Physical and Motivational Barriers (Bike)1115140.3021214170.784
Global index614200.061410290.225
Data in bold = Significant changes; p-value < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Logistic regression of the differences in active commuting and perceived barriers at baseline and follow-up.
Table 4. Logistic regression of the differences in active commuting and perceived barriers at baseline and follow-up.
Model 1: dv. Differences of Baseline—Follow-Up of Active Commuting to/from SchoolModel 2: dv. Differences of Baseline—Follow-Up of the Global IndexModel 3: dv. Differences of Baseline—Follow-Up of “Built Environment (Walk)”
Odds Ratio (CI 95%)Odds Ratio (CI 95%)Odds Ratio (CI 95%)
Cycling group * 0.6 (0.13–2.71)0.56 (0.21–1.47)0.42 (0.12–1.49)
* Reference’s category: Control group; All p values were not significant; CI = Confidence interval; DV = Dependent Variable.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aranda-Balboa, M.J.; Huertas-Delgado, F.J.; Gálvez-Fernández, P.; Saucedo-Araujo, R.; Molina-Soberanes, D.; Campos-Garzón, P.; Herrador-Colmenero, M.; Lara-Sánchez, A.J.; Molina-García, J.; Queralt, A.; et al. The Effect of a School-Based Intervention on Children’s Cycling Knowledge, Mode of Commuting and Perceived Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159626

AMA Style

Aranda-Balboa MJ, Huertas-Delgado FJ, Gálvez-Fernández P, Saucedo-Araujo R, Molina-Soberanes D, Campos-Garzón P, Herrador-Colmenero M, Lara-Sánchez AJ, Molina-García J, Queralt A, et al. The Effect of a School-Based Intervention on Children’s Cycling Knowledge, Mode of Commuting and Perceived Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159626

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aranda-Balboa, María Jesús, Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Patricia Gálvez-Fernández, Romina Saucedo-Araujo, Daniel Molina-Soberanes, Pablo Campos-Garzón, Manuel Herrador-Colmenero, Amador Jesús Lara-Sánchez, Javier Molina-García, Ana Queralt, and et al. 2022. "The Effect of a School-Based Intervention on Children’s Cycling Knowledge, Mode of Commuting and Perceived Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159626

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop