Thus far, however, its users have tended to be more physically active and socio-economically advantaged residents, which may limit its impacts on overall population health and health equity. We therefore intend to examine in future analyses the extent to which these relatively high

levels of infrastructure use translate into overall increases in walking, cycling and physical activity, and into overall decreases in motorised travel and associated carbon emissions. We also intend to examine which particular changes in the Connect2 routes encourage use. This will involve integrating additional quantitative and qualitative research conducted within the broader iConnect program, and will capitalize on the observed heterogeneity between study sites in intervention characteristics and in levels of use. Through close attention to mechanisms and contexts, we hope to examine not only whether environmental interventions check details like Connect2 ‘work’, but also why they do or do not work, for whom and in what circumstances (Ogilvie et al., 2011). The authors declare that

there are no conflicts of interest. This paper was written on behalf Gefitinib of the iConnect consortium (www.iconnect.ac.uk; Christian Brand, Fiona Bull, Ashley Cooper, Andy Day, Nanette Mutrie, David Ogilvie, Jane Powell, John Preston and Harry Rutter). The iConnect consortium is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant reference EP/G00059X/1). DO is also supported by the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number MC_UP_1001/1) and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC

Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, NIHR and Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. AG contributed to this work while funded by an NIHR post-doctoral fellowship partly hosted by CEDAR. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, the Department of Health or other study funders, which had no role in the conduct of below the study or in the writing of this report. We thank the study participants for their cooperation, the study team led by Karen Ghali for managing data collection, and Yena Song for calculating the proximity measures and creating the maps. “
“Low socioeconomic status (SES) is a Modulators significant risk factor for chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes and precursory conditions such as impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose, together known as ‘pre-diabetes’ (Department of Health, 2002). Type 2 diabetes prevalence in the UK is rising, from 2.8% in 1996 to 4.3% in 2005 (González et al., 2009) and 100,000 people are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes every year in the UK (Diabetes UK, 2006).