19/52 The impact of highway infrastructure and its management on the safety (or perceived safety) of pedestrians and cyclists, and the uptake of active transport
Please note: The Public Health Research (PHR) Programme would like to draw researchers’ attention to the commissioning brief below, which was first advertised in Spring 2019. This is a brief that we have previously advertised as a commissioned funding opportunity. We are still interested in receiving applications in this research area, as it remains a priority in our portfolio. However, please note that the commissioning brief, along with the underpinning literature searches, has not been updated since originally written.
- Which population level interventions involving changes to highway infrastructure, are effective* in improving the safety (or perceived safety) of pedestrians and cyclists, and increasing the uptake of active transport?
If someone is in a vehicle that is involved in a collision, they have the frame of the vehicle, and often other features such as air bags and crumple zones to help absorb the force of the collision and provide protection. If a pedestrian or cyclist is in a collision, they are exposed to the full force of the impact.
Perceived lack of safety for pedestrians and cyclists and the convenience of the car are reasons often given for not walking or cycling. Modifications to highway infrastructure to encourage walking and cycling and to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians might encourage more people to engage in active travel and gain the concomitant health benefits of increased levels of physical activity.
There is growing interest in rebalancing the use of space in urban design, moving away from a predominant focus on accommodating cars and towards the use of public transport and creating more space for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally, research has shown that there is a negative correlation between car ownership and active travel.
The Public Health Research programme wishes to commission research on:
- Population level interventions to improve the safety (or perceived safety) of pedestrians and cyclists, which may include (but are not restricted to): infrastructure to separate motorised vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists; improvements to road crossings; wider pedestrian routes and cycle tracks/lanes; foot/cycle bridges over busy roads; continuous pavements for pedestrians; separate traffic signals for cyclists; or management of the traffic network.
- How road and other infrastructure encourages walking and cycling, as well as reducing accidents. Examples may include (but are not restricted to): the availability of cycle parking; clear signage for foot/cycle paths; direct routes for foot/cycle paths; and radial routes connecting city centres with outlying residential areas
- The impact of urban planning on car ownership and consequent physical activity levels of car owners, their households and the surrounding populations.
- The impact of infrastructure changes on walking and cycling among different population groups, including children, older people and disabled people (including those with visual, mobility or cognitive impairment)
- The impact of changing the balance in street design between convenience for cars and convenience for walkers, cyclists and public transport (which may include the impact of changes to car parking availability on numbers of walkers, cyclists and users of public transport) and the economic impact of such changes on commerce in high streets and elsewhere.
- Urban design interventions which may reduce car use, and encourage walking and cycling.
- The value to the local economy of active travel modes.
*Effectiveness’ in this context relates not only to the size of the effect, but it also takes into account any harmful or negative side effects, including inequitable outcomes.
Studies should generate evidence to inform the implementation of single or multi-component interventions. Studies may include evidence syntheses, studies evaluating interventions, including trials, quasi- and natural experimental evaluations, and feasibility and pilot studies for these. We welcome applications for linked studies (e.g. pilot + main evaluation). Secondary analyses of existing epidemiological data and/or impact modelling studies may also be funded. We encourage the adoption of a systems perspective where appropriate to the study context. In all cases a strong justification for the chosen design and methods must be made.
The primary outcome measure of the research, if not necessarily the intervention itself, must be health-related. The positive or negative impacts of the intervention, including inequitable outcomes should be considered. Researchers are asked to indicate how long-term impacts will be assessed. All applications should identify underlying theory and include a logic model (or equivalent) to help explain underlying context, theory and mechanisms. Proposals should ensure adequate public involvement in the research.
The impacts of public health interventions are often complex and wide-reaching. Studies should acknowledge this by adopting a broad perspective, taking account of costs and benefits to all relevant sectors of society. An appropriate health economic analysis to inform cost effectiveness, affordability or return on investment should be included where appropriate. Sustainability - health, economic and environmental - are also of interest.
For all proposals, applicants should clearly state the public health utility of the outcomes and the mechanisms by which they will inform future public health policy and practice. Details about the potential pathway to impact and scalability of interventions, if shown to have an effect, should be provided, including an indication of which organisation(s) might fund the relevant intervention(s) if widely implemented.
Representatives of policy or practice communities relevant to the project should be directly engaged or involved with the development and delivery of PHR research because this produces research that is more closely grounded in, and reflective of, their concerns and makes the subsequent uptake and application of research findings more likely. By policy or practice, we mean any organisation that is involved in shaping policy or delivering public health services relevant to the research, whether at local or national levels. This might include local authorities, charities, voluntary organisations, professional bodies, commercial organisations, governmental and arms-length bodies.
We welcome proposals in which appropriate professionals (e.g. a director of public health or chief executive of a charity) are formally part of the project team as a co-applicant, and in which they play a defined role in the project. Their contribution may be to facilitate or enable research access to organisations, to be directly involved in research fieldwork, to contribute to interpretation of emerging findings, and to be involved in dissemination activity. The time of policy or practice representatives as co-applicants can be costed into the proposal, as part of the Research Costs. As with all members of a project team, an individual's equipoise should be considered before they are proposed as co-applicant of a research project. Their involvement and associated costs should be fully justified, in the same way as for academic applicants.
There are other ways in which policy or practice representative support for the proposed research can be demonstrated, such as co-opting on to a project advisory or steering group, or the inclusion of a letter or statement of support from a senior policy or practice partner from relevant organisations.
Remit of Call
All proposals submitted under this call must fall within the remit of the NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) programme. Please go to the PHR pages for details. For the evaluation of time sensitive, policy driven, interventions applicants may wish to consider the fast-track work stream.
The PHR Programme funds research to generate evidence to inform the delivery of non-NHS interventions intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities in health. Our scope is multi-disciplinary and broad, covering a wide range of interventions that improve public health.
The primary aim of the programme is the evaluation of practical interventions. We will fund both primary research (mainly evaluative, but also some preparatory research) and secondary research (evidence synthesis); precise methods will need to be appropriate to the question being asked and the feasibility of the research.
Our research serves a variety of key stakeholders including: decision-makers in local government; primary care organisations and other local public services; third sector organisations; relevant national agencies (e.g. NICE) concerned with improving public health and reducing health inequalities; researchers; public health practitioners and the public.
Applicants should consider how their findings will impact upon decision making in public health practice, whether results are generalisable to other populations and affordable, setting out a clear pathway to impact. The NIHR PHR programme recognises that there is a need for an evidence base for disinvestment and that the removal of an intervention from a population can be worthy of evaluation.
The affordability of the intervention, and at least an indication of the stakeholder(s) willing to fund the intervention, should be referenced within the stage 1 application. At the stage 2 application point, statements of support confirming stakeholder commitments to funding will be required. Applicants should be aware that the NIHR PHR programme is unable to fund intervention costs.
The NIHR PHR programme is open to the joint funding of research projects with other organisations such as those in the third sector. If you would like to explore the potential for joint funding, please contact us at email@example.com with details of your proposal and the other funder prior to submission.
All of our funded projects are eligible for publication in the NIHR Journals Library. This open access resource is freely available online, and provides a full and permanent record of NIHR-funded research.
Notes to Applicants
The NIHR PHR programme is funded by the NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland, NISCHR in Wales, and HSC R&D, Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland. Researchers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are eligible to apply for funding under this programme.
Applicants are recommended to seek advice from suitable methodological support services, at an early stage in the development of their research idea and application. The NIHR Research Design Service can advise on appropriate NIHR programme choice, and developing and designing high quality research grant applications.
The NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) supports health and social care research taking place in NHS and non-NHS settings. The CRN provides expert advice and support to plan, set up and deliver research efficiently.
Clinical Trials Units are regarded as an important component of many trial applications however, they are not essential for all types of studies to the PHR programme. The CTUs can advise and participate throughout the process from initial idea development through to project delivery and reporting. NIHR CTU Support Funding provides information on units receiving funding from the NIHR to collaborate on research applications to NIHR programmes and funded projects. In addition, the UKCRC CTU Network provides a searchable information resource on all registered units in the UK, and lists key interest areas and contact information.
In line with the government’s transparency agenda, any contract resulting from this tender may be published in its entirety to the general public.
For information about contracts worth over £10,000 with the government and its agencies use: Contracts Finder.