Methods used to capture subjective user experiences in adults while riding bicycles: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

People who ride bicycles often feel unsafe and/or uncomfortable riding in various road conditions. Therefore, understanding the perceptions or experiences of bicyclists in real-world riding conditions is critical to inform interventions that enhance the experience of bike riding and therefore increase participation. A scoping review was undertaken to investigate methods used for capturing subjective experiences in the process of bicycling, or immediately post-ride. Six electronic databases and reference lists of the included studies were searched from inception to May 2021. Of the 11,904 non-duplicate articles, 53 full-text articles were included in the review. The review identified the following methods used to capture the subjective experiences: (i) on-ride method (n = 7), (ii) immediately post-ride method (n = 13), (iii) on-ride plus post-ride methods (n = 8), (iv) ride-along method (n = 4), (v) ride-along plus post-ride methods (n = 6), and (vi) intercept survey methods (n = 15). Some studies exclusively used naturalistic methods for capturing subjective experiences. There is a need to advance methods and standardise approaches to capture subjective user experiences. This is needed to ensure that we are able to understand the experiences and needs of people who ride bikes to inform the provision of safe and connected infrastructure for all ages and abilities.

KEYWORDS:

• Perceived safety
• perceived comfort
• methods
• bicycling
• scoping review

Acknowledgements

AK conceptualised the article, drafted the methodology, investigated the manuscript and wrote the original draft. TL drafted the methodology, investigated the article, and wrote, reviewed and edited the article. LP drafted the methodology, wrote, reviewed and edited the manuscript. BB conceptualised the article, drafted the methodology, wrote, reviewed and edited the article and supervised the work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Research Council [grant number FT210100183].