Nelson et al. (2008) [31] | Cross-sectional | n = 4,013 adolescents; 48.1% girls; 16.1 years, 15–17 years. | Self-report questionnaires.
| Active commuting; Mode of transport, barriers, distance. No theoretical framework mentioned.
| 33% walked or cycled to school; A higher proportion of males than females commuted actively (41.0% vs. 33.8%); Adolescents living in more densely populated areas had greater odds of active commuting than those in the most sparsely populated areas; Most walkers lived within 1.5 miles and cyclists within 2.5 miles of school; A 1-mile increase in distance decreased the odds of active commuting by 71%. |
Nelson and Woods (2010) [32] | Cross-sectional (from Take PART study: PA research for teenagers) | n = 2159 adolescents; 47.1% girls; 16.0 years, 15–17 years. | Self-report questionnaires.
| Active commuting (cycle, walking); Inactive commuting (car, bus or train); Duration, frequency. Mentions the Social-Ecological theory. | Most adolescents chose active modes of travel (61.3% walked, 8.7% cycled); boys were more likely to cycle to school (15.4% vs. 1.2%) and girls were more likely to travel by car (27.0% vs. 18.3%). |
Woods et al. (2010) [22] | Cross-sectional (Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity (CSPPA) study, Nationally representative Irish cluster sample) | n = 1275 primary school students; 45% female; 11.4 years, 10–13 years; n = 4122 post-primary school students; 52% female; 14.5 years, 12–18 years. | Self-report questionnaires; ActiGraph, accelerometers and pedometers. | Active travel; Type of transport, duration, distance. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 38% (31% primary, 40% post-primary) of children and youth walked or cycled to school in 2009; journey durations were on average 15 min for active commuters; No gender differences existed for active commuting at primary school; post-primary females were less likely to actively commute than males (38% vs. 43%, p < 0.01); 1% of primary pupils and 3% of post-primary pupils cycled to school; Main barriers: Distance (37% primary, 54% post-primary); Time (13% and 19%); Traffic-related danger for primary (13%); and Convenience for post-primary (8%). |
Coulter and Woods (2011) [33] | Cross-sectional | n = 605 students; 44% female; 8.8 years, 5–15 years. Other: All students from 1 single, large, urban, mixed primary school in Dublin. | Self-report questionnaires. | Active Commuting (as walking or cycling to school on the previous day); Inactive commuting (traveling by bus or car); Estimation of residential distance from School. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 39.9% of children actively commuted to school (37.8% walk, 1.1% cycle); 40.7% of children actively commuting from school (39% walk, 1.7% cycle); 56.6% of primary aged children are driven to school; 28.9% live within 1 km of the school but are inactive commuters; Gender did not predict inactive commuting; Compared with younger children (5–6 years), the odds of inactively commuting for every year increase in age decreases by approximately 24%. |
Gahan (2011) [34] | Cross-sectional | n = 89 adolescents; 6–15 years; 48.3% female (returned questionnaires) n = 44 adolescents; 6–15 years; 47.7% girls (participated in the workshop). | Self-report questionnaires; Workshop; Walkability audit. | Active travel; Type of transport, frequency. Mentions social ecological frameworks. | Most commonly used mode of transport by children and young people: 1. Parents’ car (357 times; 2. Walking (205 times); 3. Cycling (80 times); Most commonly use of walking and cycling is going to school, shop, friend’s house; Main barriers: no place to walk (56%); difficulty crossing the road (57%); drivers do not behave well (60%); neighbourhood is not a nice place to live (35%). |
Murtagh and Murphy (2011) [35] | Cross-sectional | n = 140 children; 39.3% female; 9.9 years, 9–11 years. | Self-report questionnaires; Objective pedometers for step count. | Active travel; Active commute. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 62.1% travelled by car, and 36.4% walked to school; Children who walked or cycled to school had higher daily step counts than those who travelled by passive modes (16,118 ± 5757 vs. 13,363 ± 5332 steps). |
Sullivan and Nic Gabhainn (2012) [36] | Cross-sectional (From the national research study of Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC)) | n = 16,060 students; 49% girls; 10–17 years. From 3rd class in primary school to 5th year in post-primary school. Other: Nationally representative Irish cluster sample. | Self-report questionnaires. | Active travel; Type of transport, duration, frequency (every day). No theoretical framework mentioned. | Walk: boys 23.9%, girls 23.5%; 10–11 years 26.0%, 12–14 years 23.7%, 15–17 years 22.6%; SC1–2 19.9%, SC3–4 23.2%, SC5–6 27.0%; Cycle: boys 3.7%, girls 0.8%; 10–11 years 4.0%, 12–14 years 2.5%, 15–17 years 1.6%; SC1–2 1.8%, SC3–4 2.5%, SC5-6 3.2%. |
Clarke and The HBSC Ireland Team (2013) [37] | Cross-sectional (factsheet) | Sample from the HBSC research study; n = 12,661 (10–17 years). | Self-report questionnaires. | Travel to school by walking or cycling for the main part of their journey. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 26.5% of schoolchildren in Ireland reported actively travelling to school, 28.1% boys, 24.7% girls; Boys, younger children, children from lower social classes, and children living in urban areas were more likely to report actively travelling to school; Children who reported actively travelling to school were more likely to report excellent health, to be very happy, to be more active. |
Delaney (2013) [38] | Cross-sectional | n = 2877 participants; 53% girls; 12–20 years. | Self-report questionnaires. | Active travel; Distance to school. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 24% used active transport as a means of travel to school; Most individuals, who use active transport, live within 1 mile of their school; The percentages of those using active travel dropped the further individuals live from their respective school; Those who were active in sport and recreation activities appeared to be greater users of active travel. |
Daniels et al. (2014) [39] | Cross-sectional. | n = 73 children; 60.3% female; 11–13 years. | Self-report questionnaires; Workshop. | Active School Travel (walking and cycling). No theoretical framework mentioned. | Non-active travel = 69.9%; 54.5% who reported they actively travelled do so 4-5 days per week; 86.3% reported owning a bicycle; None of the active travellers reported travelling to school with parents; they were more likely to travel to school with friends compared to children who do not travel actively (59.1% vs. 9.8 %); Main promoters: 1. Company/Parents and Community; 2. School infrastructure/School; 3. Distance/Parents; 4. Physical Health/Parents, Self, Health Professionals; 5. Equipment/Parents, Self, School, Government; Main barriers: 1. Distance/Community and Parents; 2. Weather/Government and Weatherman; 3. Lifestyle/Parents; 4. Road infrastructure and planning/Government, School, Builders; 5. Strangers/Community, Parents, Government, Builders. |
Harrington et al. (2014) [40] | Report (including both longitudinal and cross-sectional reports and studies) | HBSC: n = 13,611 (11–15 years; 2013–2014 waves—representative sample). Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) Infant and Child Cohorts: n ≈ 9,000 children and their caregivers; (Wave 3 of the infant cohort, followed up at age 5 years); n ≈ 7400 children; 2011–2012, from Wave 2 of the child cohort, followed up at age 13 years. | Children and parents self-report questionnaires. | Percentage of children reporting active transport to or from school each day. No theoretical framework mentioned. | Active transportation grade D (meaning 21% to 40% meet the defined benchmark); Data from larger studies provided evidence of children/adolescents succeeding with 20% to 29%; Sex gaps evident for other indicators may not be as obvious for active transport; Children from rural areas were less likely to active commute than their urban counterparts. |
McMinn et al. (2014) [41] | Cross-sectional (including 5 countries) | n = 136; 8.7 years, 69.9 girls. | Self-report questionnaires. | Active commuting; Walkers. Mentions the Theory of Planned Behaviour. | Republic of Ireland 42.0% walkers (i.e., those participants who categorized themselves as being in the action or maintenance stages, according to Theory of Planned Behaviour). |
Woods and Nelson (2014) [42] | Cross-sectional | n = 199 adolescents; 42.3% girls; 15.9 years, 15–17 years. | Self-report questionnaires; Objective distance (map-measured). | Distance, Time and Mode of active travel (walk, cycle, car, bus). No theoretical framework mentioned. | Mode of transport: walk 72.4%, car 21.1%, bus 6.5%; Distance travelled by active commuters 1.3 km - perceived distance 1.4 km; by inactive 1.4 km, perceived 2.7 km; Active commuters were accurate in their perception of distance travelled; For passive commuters, the average actual distance (1350 m) travelled to school was significantly shorter than their perception of this distance. |
Lambe (2015) [43] | Community-wide intervention study collected at 2 time-points (May 2011 and May 2013). | Study 1: Primary Education: 5th–6th class students (n = 1457) in 21 primary schools (9 in intervention town 1; 5 in intervention town 2; and 7 in the control town). Study 2: Secondary Education: 1st, 2nd, the class students in 15 secondary schools (6 schools in intervention town 1; 5 in intervention town 2; and 4 in the control town). | Self-report questionnaires.
| Travel mode to school; Actual and Preferred; Awareness of community interventions on active travel. Mentions ecological models. | Study 1: At baseline, 25.6% and 3.7% of the total sample walked or cycled to school; boys were more likely to cycle than girls; Greater proportions of students walked or cycled home from school than to school (39.3% vs. 29.3%); Car was the most common mode of travel to or from school in each town (60.8% and 49.1%, respectively); Overall, the intervention had no effect on active travel behaviour. Study 2: 17% of the total sample actively commuted to school and distance was a key factor; 64% of the total sample lived more than 3km from their school and of these, only 7% actively commuted to school; Boys were more likely to engage in active travel to school but car travel was still the most common (62%) and preferred (47%) mode of travel for all; Overall, awareness of the community-wide active travel campaign increased by 13% and 20% in intervention towns 1 and 2. |
Central Statistics Office (2016) [44] | Cross-sectional (Census 2016, national population survey) | n = 896,575 commuters (546,614 primary commuters; 349,961 secondary commuters). Adult respondents. | Self-report questionnaires. | Self-propelled transport (walking - cycling). No theoretical framework mentioned. | Primary Education: Active transport decreased from 49.5% in 1986 to 24.8% in 2016. In 2016, 22% of Irish vs. 38% non-Irish walk; 1% of Irish and 2% of non-Irish cycle. Secondary Education: Walking decreased from 31.9% in 1986 to 21.2% in 2016; Cycling decreased from 15.3% in 1986 to 2.1% in 2016; Just over a fifth of secondary students walked to school (74,111) up slightly from 73,946 (0.2%) in 2011, but as a percentage of commuters, down almost 2% since 2011; 2016 saw the reversal of this trend with a 10.5% increase since 2011, bringing the numbers of secondary students taking to their bikes to over 7,000. |
Harrington et al. (2016) [27] | Report (including both longitudinal and cross-sectional reports and studies) | Sample from: Ireland’s 2016 Report Card Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) Infant and Child Cohorts; HBSC; Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity (CSPPA Plus)/ | Self-report questionnaires. Interviews. | Active transportation. No theoretical framework mentioned. | Active Transportation - Grade D (The grade for each indicator is based on the percentage of children and youth meeting a defined benchmark, D is 21% to 40%); 23% males, 25% females used of active transport in a local sample of 2877. |
Murtagh, Dempster, and Murphy (2016) [45] | Cross-sectional | Sample from “Growing Up in Ireland” study; Wave 1 n = 8502 (9 years); Wave 2 n = 7479 (13 years). | Interviews. Self-report questionnaires. Anthropometric measures. | Active school travel (uptake and maintenance; dropped out;); Walking and cycling classified as active; Travel mode. Mentions the Bioecological Model. | Within a 4 years period, active travel decreased from 25% to 20%; More likely to uptake or maintain if living in Urban; Less distance affected uptake and maintenance. Walking: Wave1 = 23.8% to Wave2 = 17.8% Cycling: Wave1 = 1.3% to Wave2 = 2.0%; At 9 years of age 75% of children travelled to school using passive travel modes; At 13 years 66% of students maintained passive commuting modes, 14% switched from active to passive commuting, 11% maintained active commuting, and 9% took up active commuting; Overall, at 13 years, 80.2% of the sample travelled to school using passive modes. |
Lambe et al. (2017) [46] | Repeat cross-sectional study of a natural experiment | n = 1459 5th–6th class students from all the 21 schools in 3 towns (n = 1038 students in 2 intervention towns; n = 419 students in 1 control town). | Self-report questionnaires. | Actual and preferred mode of travel to and from school; Awareness of the active travel campaign in school and town; Percentage of children that walk or cycle to school. No theoretical framework mentioned. | Baseline: Total sample, car use (60.8%), cycle (3.7%), walk (25.6%); Walk or cycle from school (39.3%), to school (29.3%); Bicycle ownership (>85%); Preference for walking and cycling to school was considerably higher than preference for being driven. Intervention impact: There was no overall intervention effect detected for active travel to or from school. To school (Town1: pre 33.9%, post 31.2%; Town 2: pre 28.8%, post 33.0%); From school (Town1: pre 41.0%, post 39.5%; Town 2: pre 37.4%, post 38.4%). Some evidence of an effect for males in intervention town 2 (increase of 14% in active travel home from school). |
Woods et al. (2018) [21] | Cross-sectional (CSPPA study - Nationally representative Irish cluster sample) | n = 1103 Primary school students, 56% female; 11.43 years (n = 3594 Post-primary school students; 54% female; 14.11 years; 45% male). | Self-report questionnaires ActiGraph accelerometers and pedometers. | Active travel and active commuting; Type of transport, duration, distance. No theoretical framework mentioned. | 42% primary, 40% post-primary school children reported walking or cycling to or from school; 2.2% reported cycling to or from school; At primary school level, more 6th class pupils reported actively commuting than 5th class pupils (47% vs. 36%); At post primary school level, active commuting peaked during 4th year (61%), but was lowest among 6th year pupils (23%); Main barriers: 1. Not enough safe places to cross the road for primary school students (26%), distance being too far for post-primary students (32%); 2. Heavy schoolbags for primary and post-primary school students (22% and 28%, respectively). |