Cargando…

Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews

OBJECTIVE: Robust program evaluations can identify effective promotion strategies. This scoping review aimed to analyze review articles (including systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, scoping review, narrative review, rapid review, critical review, and integrative reviews) to systemati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kosowan, Leanne, Shannon, Stephen, Rothney, Janet, Halas, Gayle, Enns, Jennifer, Holmqvist, Maxine, Wener, Pamela, Goertzen, Leah, Katz, Alan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34872359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08901171211050059
_version_ 1784635807788695552
author Kosowan, Leanne
Shannon, Stephen
Rothney, Janet
Halas, Gayle
Enns, Jennifer
Holmqvist, Maxine
Wener, Pamela
Goertzen, Leah
Katz, Alan
author_facet Kosowan, Leanne
Shannon, Stephen
Rothney, Janet
Halas, Gayle
Enns, Jennifer
Holmqvist, Maxine
Wener, Pamela
Goertzen, Leah
Katz, Alan
author_sort Kosowan, Leanne
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Robust program evaluations can identify effective promotion strategies. This scoping review aimed to analyze review articles (including systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, scoping review, narrative review, rapid review, critical review, and integrative reviews) to systematically map and describe physical activity program evaluations published between January 2014 and July 2020 to summarize key characteristics of the published literature and suggest opportunities to strengthen current evaluations. DATA SOURCE: We conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Medline, Scopus, Sportdiscus, Eric, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Abstracts were screened for inclusion based on the following criteria: review article, English language, human subjects, primary prevention focus, physical activity evaluation, and evaluations conducted in North America. EXTRACTION: Our initial search yielded 3193 articles; 211 review articles met the inclusion criteria. SYNTHESIS: We describe review characteristics, evaluation measures, and “good practice characteristics” to inform evaluation strategies. RESULTS: Many reviews (72%) did not assess or describe the use of an evaluation framework or theory in the primary articles that they reviewed. Among those that did, there was significant variability in terminology making comparisons difficult. Process indicators were more common than outcome indicators (63.5% vs 46.0%). There is a lack of attention to participant characteristics with 29.4% capturing participant characteristics such as race, income, and neighborhood. Negative consequences from program participation and program efficiency were infrequently considered (9.3% and 13.7%). CONCLUSION: Contextual factors, negative outcomes, the use of evaluation frameworks, and measures of program sustainability would strengthen evaluations and provide an evidence-base for physical activity programming, policy, and funding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8772256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87722562022-01-21 Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews Kosowan, Leanne Shannon, Stephen Rothney, Janet Halas, Gayle Enns, Jennifer Holmqvist, Maxine Wener, Pamela Goertzen, Leah Katz, Alan Am J Health Promot Literature Reviews OBJECTIVE: Robust program evaluations can identify effective promotion strategies. This scoping review aimed to analyze review articles (including systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, scoping review, narrative review, rapid review, critical review, and integrative reviews) to systematically map and describe physical activity program evaluations published between January 2014 and July 2020 to summarize key characteristics of the published literature and suggest opportunities to strengthen current evaluations. DATA SOURCE: We conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Medline, Scopus, Sportdiscus, Eric, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Abstracts were screened for inclusion based on the following criteria: review article, English language, human subjects, primary prevention focus, physical activity evaluation, and evaluations conducted in North America. EXTRACTION: Our initial search yielded 3193 articles; 211 review articles met the inclusion criteria. SYNTHESIS: We describe review characteristics, evaluation measures, and “good practice characteristics” to inform evaluation strategies. RESULTS: Many reviews (72%) did not assess or describe the use of an evaluation framework or theory in the primary articles that they reviewed. Among those that did, there was significant variability in terminology making comparisons difficult. Process indicators were more common than outcome indicators (63.5% vs 46.0%). There is a lack of attention to participant characteristics with 29.4% capturing participant characteristics such as race, income, and neighborhood. Negative consequences from program participation and program efficiency were infrequently considered (9.3% and 13.7%). CONCLUSION: Contextual factors, negative outcomes, the use of evaluation frameworks, and measures of program sustainability would strengthen evaluations and provide an evidence-base for physical activity programming, policy, and funding. SAGE Publications 2021-12-06 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8772256/ /pubmed/34872359 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08901171211050059 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Literature Reviews
Kosowan, Leanne
Shannon, Stephen
Rothney, Janet
Halas, Gayle
Enns, Jennifer
Holmqvist, Maxine
Wener, Pamela
Goertzen, Leah
Katz, Alan
Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title_full Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title_fullStr Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title_full_unstemmed Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title_short Informing the Physical Activity Evaluation Framework: A Scoping Review of Reviews
title_sort informing the physical activity evaluation framework: a scoping review of reviews
topic Literature Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34872359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08901171211050059
work_keys_str_mv AT kosowanleanne informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT shannonstephen informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT rothneyjanet informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT halasgayle informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT ennsjennifer informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT holmqvistmaxine informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT wenerpamela informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT goertzenleah informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews
AT katzalan informingthephysicalactivityevaluationframeworkascopingreviewofreviews