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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |