Study abbreviation	Intervention and setting	Effect estimate for car use	Other comments	Number of criteria on which judged to have low risk of bias, and study design
Rowland 2003	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants School setting	Car use at follow‐up 24% (intervention group), 22% (control group)	Adjusted odds for walking, cycling or using public transport in intervention schools compared with control schools was 0.98 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.59)	5 Cluster RCT
Wen 2008	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants School setting	Student‐reported 'car use only' (i.e. no other travel modes used on trip to school) decreased by 8.3% in intervention group and decreased by 11.3% in control group (95% CI for difference: ‐14.1 to 20.1).  Parents reported increased car use in 10.9% of intervention group and 16.8% of control group (95% CI for difference: ‐13.0 to 11.2), and decreased car use in 41.5% of intervention group and 32.1% of control group (95% CI for difference: ‐2.4 to 21.2). In summary, the effect on car use was not significant.	Greater increase in walking in intervention group compared with control group as reported by parents (9.8% greater; 95% CI: 0.7 to 18.9).  No significant difference in student‐reported walking	4 Cluster RCT
Mutrie 2002	Advice and materials for individual participants promoting active and sustainable travel Workplace setting	Car use not reported	Increase in walking was 1.93 times higher in intervention than control group (95% CI: 1.06 to 3.52).  No change in cycling.	3 RCT
McKee 2007	Active travel resources for school curriculum and for individual participants School setting	Decrease in distance travelled to school by car in intervention group was 850.5 m more than control group (95% CI: 445 to 1255)	Walking increased significantly more in intervention group	2 CBA
Mendoza 2009	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants (main focus: walking school bus programme) School setting	Car use in intervention group 47% (before), 34% (after).  Car use in control group 41% (before), 39% (after).	Change in car use not significantly different between intervention and control groups.  Walking increased significantly more in intervention group.	2 CBA
DfT 2005 Bracknell Forest	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants School setting	Car use in intervention group 46.0% (before), 45.2% (after).  Car use in control group 44.6% (before), 45.0% (after).	Statistical significance of differences between intervention and control groups not reported	1 CBA
DfT 2005 Lancashire	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants	Primary schools: car/taxi use in intervention group 50.2% (before), 57.3% (after); in control group 43.9% (before), 52.2% (after).  Secondary schools: car/taxi use in intervention group 24.1% (before), 22.2% (after); in control group 24.3% (before), 26.7% (after).	Statistical significance of differences between intervention and control groups not reported	1 CBA
DfT 2005 Redcar Cleveland	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants School setting	Primary schools: car use in intervention group 23.9% (before), 30.0% (after).  Car use in control group 32.0% (before), 35.7% (after).  Secondary schools: car use in intervention group 35.0% (before), 30.0% (after).  Car use in control group 21.1% (before), 18.4% (after).	Statistical significance of differences between intervention and control groups not reported	1 CBA
DfT 2005 Telford Wrekin	School travel plan: multifactorial, ongoing intervention, targeting organisation as a whole as well as individual participants School setting	Car use in intervention group 52.5% (before), 50.8% (after).  Car use in control group 44.9% (before), 49.5% (after).	Statistical significance of differences between intervention and control groups not reported	1 CBA
Jacobs 1982	Using information and financial incentives to promote carpooling University setting	Carpooling rates in intervention group A 11% (before), 21% (after); in intervention group B 11% (before), 14% (after).  Carpooling rates in control group D 9.4% (before), 8.9% (after).	Statistical significance of differences between intervention and control groups not reported	1 CBA
Sargeant 2004 Addenbrooke	Advice and materials for individual participants promoting active and sustainable travel Workplace setting	Single‐occupant car use in intervention group 26.5% (before), 28.9% (after).  Car use in control group 33.0% (before), 35.2% (after).	Statistical significance unclear	1 RCT
Sargeant 2004 Car Park	Advice and materials for individual participants promoting active and sustainable travel Workplace setting	Single‐occupant car use in intervention group 70.0% (before), 60.9% (after).  Car use in control group 69.1% (before), 74.7% (after).	Statistical significance unclear	1 RCT
Sargeant 2004 New Recruit	Advice and materials for individual participants promoting active and sustainable travel Workplace setting	Single‐occupant car use in intervention group 45.5% (before), 45.1% (after).  Car use in control group 51.9% (before), 56.2% (after).	Statistical significance unclear	1 RCT
TAPESTRY Dublin 2003	'Walk to School Week' School setting	Car use in intervention group 44% (before), 42% (after).  Car use in control group 78% (before), 71% (after).	Report concluded 'there were no significant changes in behaviour'	1 CBA
TAPESTRY Herts 2003	'Walk to School Week' School setting	Car use in intervention group 51% (before), 52% (after).  Car use in control group 46% (before), 46% (after).	Statistical significance unclear	1 CBA
Nakayama 2005	Group‐based travel behaviour change programme: travel behaviour change support group University setting	Car travel mileage reduced by 54% among group co‐ordinators and 48% among group participants, compared with 1% in non‐participants	Car travel reduction among both co‐ordinators and participants was significantly greater than non‐participants.   Co‐ordinators also increased 'eco friendly mode use' (bus, train or walking) significantly more than non‐participants.	0 CBA
Atherton 1982	Compressed work week (working the same weekly hours, but over a four‐day week or a nine‐day fortnight) Workplace setting	Weekly household car travel mileage decreased by 20 miles/week (7%) in intervention group but increased by 30 miles/week (11%) in control group	Change in ridesharing in intervention group was no different from control group. The increase in transit use for central business district employees was smaller in the intervention group (3% increase) than control group (5% increase), but statistical significance was not reported	0 CBA