Corrigendum to “Impact of new rapid transit on physical activity: A meta-analysis” Preventive Medicine Reports 10 (2018) 184–190

The authors regret that there is an error in the way that the values for difference in minutes of total physical activity per week were reported (Hirsch et al., 2018).

The values in Table 1 for calculated mean difference in total physical activity (min/week) (SD) should read: 41.5 for Chang; -9.7 for Hong; and -77.7 for Huang. Also, corrected row in Table 1 appears below.

Table 1.

Summary of characteristics of natural experiment studies examining physical activity after transit interventions (n=5). Studies systematically reviewed (May-July 2017).

Author, Year	Chang, 2017	Hong, 2016	Huang, 2017	Miller, 2015	Panter, 2016
City, Country	Mexico City, MX	Los Angeles, US	Seattle, US	Salt Lake City, US	Cambridge, UK
Transit interventiona	BRT- new line, 18 new stations	LRT- 6 new stations	LRT- new line, 13 new stations	LRT- new line, 5 new stations	BRT- new network
Parallel intervention(s)b	---	Landscaping & bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure	---	Complete Street & trail	Shared-use path
Study design	Repeated Cross-sectional without control group	Longitudinal with control group	Longitudinal with control group determined retrospectivelyc	Longitudinal with control group determined retrospectivelyd	Longitudinal without control group
Scale	500 m	800 m	1.6 km	2 km	30 kme
Sampling	Household	Household	Household	Household	Workplace
Study initiation (first year)	2011	2011	2008	2012	2009
Study Duration (years)	3	1	2	1	3
N (time 1)	1067	143f	276 f	939 f	1143
N (time 2)	1420	73	198	536	469
Percent female (at baseline)	51% for post-test; 50% for pre-test	79% for intervention; 70% for controls	63%	51%	66.5%
Population	Adults 18-59	Adults 16+	Adults 18+	Adults 18+	Adults 16+
Outcome measurement	Surveyg	Accelerometry	Accelerometry	Accelerometry	Surveyh
Calculated mean difference in transportation physical activity (min/week) (SD)	27.4 (126.9)i	---	4.9 (86.4)j	0.3 (37.5)j,k	-10.5 (230.1) k
Calculated mean difference in total physical activity (min/week) (SD)	-41.5 (247.4) i	-9.7 (397.3) k,l	-77.7 (632.3) j	5.1 (147.1)j,k	-166.0 (478.6) k

^aTransit interventions were either Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT). To be included they must be along fixed guideway (separated from road traffic).

^bParallel interventions are additional built environment changes that may influence physical activity, as mentioned in the study.

^cDuring analysis this study created a “control” group retrospectively based on distance to transit.

^dDuring analyses this study created a “control” group retrospectively based on transit use.

^eParticipants were selected based on workplace, but their residences had to be within 30 km of the city

^fUnclear how many of initial participants had outcome data, often reported only sample size for complete data for both time points.

^gMeasured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)

^hMeasure using the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ)

ⁱWalking and cycling added together

^jScaled from daily to weekly

^kSumming groups

^lComputed from MVPA minutes

This error necessitates the corrections to the random effects model, producing a combined mean change of -37.2 min/week, 95% CI -91.2, 16.8. A corrected Fig. 1 appears below. Following this correction, changes should be reflected in the text:

Fig. 1.

Abstract

Among these five studies, after transit interventions, total physical activity decreased (combined mean - 37.2 min/week, 95% CI -91.2, 16.8), but transport-related physical activity increased (mean 6.7 min/week, 95% CI - 10.1, 23.5).

Section 3.3: Q and I² indicated high study heterogeneity (total physical activity Q = 90; I²= 96%). After transit interventions, total physical activity decreased (combined mean change - 37.2 min per week, 95% CI -91.2, 16.8, Fig. 1), but transport-related physical activity increased (combined mean change 6.7 min/week 95% CI - 10.1, 23.5 transport-physical activity, Fig. 2)