Skip to content

Socio-ecological Intervention to Promote Active Commuting to Work

Socio-ecological Intervention to Promote Active Commuting to Work

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02250261
Acronym
KÄPY
Enrollment
1500
Registered
2014-09-26
Start date
2014-08-31
Completion date
2017-06-30
Last updated
2018-10-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Active Travel

Keywords

walking, cycling, intervention, physical activity, environment, promotion

Brief summary

Background Cycling and walking to work is a natural way of increasing physical activity in a working population. However, the evidence on the effectiveness and cost savings of promoting active work commuting (ACW) is thin. This cluster-randomized, controlled study aims to promote ACW with environmental, social and behavioral strategies in two large workplace areas in Tampere, Finland. The paper de-scribes the protocol, evaluation and baseline findings of the study. Methods The enrollment of the workplaces took place in 2014-15. In Phase 1, the impacts of environmental strategies (improvements to the walking and cycling trails) were evaluated in Area1 including 11 workplaces. In Phase 2, five more workplaces were recruited from Area2 to evaluate the impacts of social and behavioral strategies accustomed for each workplace. The workplaces in both areas were then randomized into experimental (EXP, n=6+2) and comparison group (COM, n=5+3). EXP promoted ACW with social and behavioral strategies; COM participated in data collection only but will have the same support post-intervention. The primary outcome is the change in employees' self-reported and accelerometer-based ACW. The secondary outcomes include e.g. the changes in employees' self-rated health and subjective wellbeing at work, the change in the number of walkers and cyclists based on the traffic calculations and the change in the quality of walking and cycling trails based on camera auditing (Area1 only). External validity of the intervention is as-sessed with the compliance rates of the workplaces and employees as well as with the fidelity of the environmental, social and behavioral strategies. Health Economic Assessment Tool for Cycling and Walking (HEAT) is used to assess the cost savings of the multilevel intervention. In addition, environmental variables and types that promote ACW and mediate and moderate the effects of environmental strategies are examined. Results and discussion This study is one of the first in Finland to combine interdisciplinary collaboration between practi-tioners and researchers working in the fields of transportation, urban design, physical activity and sustainable development to promote ACW. The findings benefit all stakeholders interested in pro-moting ACW in urban context. The study will also produce supportive material for promoting ACW at the workplaces.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALKÄPY

Sponsors

Tampere University of Technology
CollaboratorOTHER
Department of Transport and Streets, City of Tampere
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Ecofellows Ltd, City of Tampere
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
University of Oxford
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Graz
CollaboratorOTHER
UKK Institute
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

All voluntary employees in the workplaces located in the specific area

Exclusion criteria

No

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in self-reported weekly AWC1 yearMean number of days employees walk or cycle to work
Change in accelerometer-based daily duration of walking and cycling to work1 yearDaily minutes of AWC (mean)
Change in self-reported means of transportation to work1 yearProportion of employees walking or cycling to work (%)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in restrictions to ACW1 yearSelf-reported by the employees and grouped into four levels
Change in injuries due to ACW1 yearSelf-reported by the employees
Change in the use of the main walking and cycling trail (Area1)1 yearMeasured with fixed-point traffic calculations
Change in the quality of the main walking and cycling trail1 yearAudited by cycling the trails with GPS
Change in motivation for ACW1 yearIncludes six indicators self-reported by the employees
Change in self-rated health1 yearEmployees self-reported health
Change in subjective well-being at work1 yearIncludes six indicators self-reported by the employees

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Cost-savings1 yearHEAT
Environmental evaluation1 yearUrban environmental variables and types
Cost-effectiveness1 yearcost-effectiveness ratio

Countries

Finland

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026