For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
97
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      161
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references97

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 7201 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Lisa O'Malley, Hilary Arksey (2005)
            Article 0 comments Cited 6088 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)
              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Article 0 comments Cited 4155 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Am J Health Promot
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Am J Health Promot
                Journal ID (hwp): spahp
                Journal ID (publisher-id): AHP
                Title: American Journal of Health Promotion
                Publisher: SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                ISSN (Print): 0890-1171
                ISSN (Electronic): 2168-6602
                Publication date (Electronic): 6 December 2021
                Publication date (Print): February 2022
                Volume: 36
                Issue: 2
                Pages: 340-366
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Ringgold 8664, universityUniversity of Manitoba; , Winnipeg, MB, Canada
                [2 ]Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, Ringgold 8664, universityUniversity of Manitoba; , Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
                [3 ]Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Ringgold 8664, universityUniversity of Manitoba; , Winnipeg, MB, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Clinical Health Psychology, Ringgold 423134, universityUniversity of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences; , Winnipeg, MB, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Occupational Therapy, Ringgold 423134, universityUniversity of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences; , Winnipeg, MB, Canada
                Author notes
                [*]Alan Katz, MB ChB, MSc, CCFP, Departments of Community Health Science & Family Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, 408-727 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg, MB, R3E 3P5, Canada. Email: alan.katz@ 123456umanitoba.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8401-7878
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2458-1738
                Article
                Publisher ID: 10.1177_08901171211050059
                DOI: 10.1177/08901171211050059
                PMC ID: 8772256
                PubMed ID: 34872359
                SO-VID: 03f280cf-0acf-49af-8f24-8c2731225cf4
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2021
                License:

                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).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Manitoba, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100008794;
                Funded by: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100004411;
                Categories
                Subject: Literature Reviews
                Custom metadata
                typesetter ts10

                Keywords: primary prevention,physical activity,evaluation,health promotion,scoping review
                Data availability:
                Keywords: primary prevention, physical activity, evaluation, health promotion, scoping review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content161

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,111

                See all reference authors