Benefits, risks, barriers, and facilitators to cycling: a narrative review.

There is large potential to increase cycling participation worldwide. Participation in cycling is associated with lower risk of mortality from any cause, and incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, as well as positive mental health and well-being. The largest potential for health gains likely to come from increasing participation amongst those who do not currently cycle regularly, rather than encouraging those who already cycle regularly to cycle more. Replacing car journeys with cycling can lead to reductions in air pollution emissions and lower pollutant exposure to the general population. Important gaps and uncertainties in the existing evidence base include: the extent to which the health benefits associated with cycling participation are fully causal due to the observational nature of much of the existing evidence base; the real-world economic cost-benefits of pragmatic interventions to increase cycling participation; and the most effective (combination of) approaches to increase cycling participation. To address these uncertainties, large-scale, long-term randomised controlled trials are needed to: evaluate the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of (combinations of) intervention approaches to induce sustained long-term increases in cycling participation in terms of increases in numbers of people cycling regularly and number of cycling journeys undertaken, across a range of population demographic groups; establish the effects of such interventions on relevant outcomes related to health and wellbeing, economic productivity and wider societal impacts; and provide more robust quantification of potential harms of increasing cycling participation, such as collision risks.

Development and optimisation of a multi-component workplace intervention to increase cycling for the Cycle Nation Project.

The Cycle Nation Project (CNP) aimed to develop, test the feasibility of and optimize a multi-component individual-/social-level workplace-based intervention to increase cycling among office staff at a multinational bank (HSBC UK). To do this, we first explored barriers to cycling in a nationally-representative survey of UK adults, then undertook focus groups with bank employees to understand any context-specific barriers and ways in which these might be overcome. These activities led to identification of 10 individual-level, two social-level, and five organizational-level modifiable factors, which were mapped to candidate intervention components previously identified in a scoping review of cycling initiatives. Interviews with HSBC UK managers then explored the practicality of implementing the candidate intervention components in bank offices. The resultant pilot CNP intervention included 32 core components across six intervention functions (education, persuasion, incentivisation, training, environmental restructuring, enablement). Participants received a loan bike for 12-weeks (or their own bike serviced), and a 9-week cycle training course (condensed to 6 weeks for those already confident in basic cycling skills), including interactive information sharing activities, behavior change techniques (e.g., weekly goal setting), bike maintenance training, practical off-road cycling skill games and on-road group rides. Sessions were delivered by trained bank staff members who were experienced cyclists. The CNP pilot intervention was delivered across three sites with 68 participants. It was completed in two sites (the third site was stopped due to COVID-19) and was feasible and acceptable to both women and men and across different ethnicities. In addition, the CNP intervention was successful (at least in the short term) in increasing cycling by 3 rides/week on average, and improving perceptions of safety, vitality, confidence, and motivation to cycle. Following minor modifications, the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the CNP intervention should be tested in a full-scale randomized controlled trial.

Using Nominal Group Technique to Identify Key Attributes of Oncology Treatments for a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background. Responding to rising oncology therapy costs, multiple value frameworks are emerging. However, input from economists in their design and conceptualization has been limited, and no existing framework has been developed using preference weightings as legitimate indicators of value. This article outlines use of the nominal group technique to identify valued treatment attributes (such as treatment inconvenience) and contextual considerations (such as current life expectancy) to inform the design of a discrete choice experiment to develop a preference weighted value framework for future decision makers. Methods. Three focus groups were conducted in 2017 with cancer patients, oncology physicians, and nurses. Using the nominal group technique, participants identified and prioritized cancer therapy treatment and delivery attributes as well as contextual issues considered when choosing treatment options. Results. Focus groups with patients (n = 8), physicians (n = 6), and nurses (n = 10) identified 30 treatment attributes and contextual considerations. Therapy health gains was the first priority across all groups. Treatment burden/inconvenience to patients and their families and quality of evidence were prioritized treatment attributes alongside preferences for resource use and cost (to patients and society) attributes. The groups also demonstrated that contextual considerations when choosing treatment varied across the stakeholders. Patients prioritized existence of alternative treatments and oncologist/center reputation while nurses focused on administration harms, communication, and treatment innovation. The physicians did not prioritize any contextual issues in their top rankings. Conclusions. The study demonstrates that beyond health gains, there are treatment attributes and contextual considerations that are highly prioritized across stakeholder groups. These represent important candidates for inclusion in a discrete choice experiment seeking to provide weighted preferences for a value framework for oncology treatment that goes beyond health outcomes.

Valuing Mobile Health: An Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey of a National Digital Health Program.

BACKGROUND: Changing population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities. OBJECTIVE: This study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions. METHODS: A contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections. RESULTS: A UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.