IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijphth/v61y2016i5d10.1007_s00038-016-0807-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three types of scientific evidence to inform physical activity policy: results from a comparative scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Alfred Rütten

    (Friedrich Alexander University)

  • Diana Schow

    (Friedrich Alexander University)

  • João Breda

    (WHO Regional Office for Europe)

  • Gauden Galea

    (WHO Regional Office for Europe)

  • Sonja Kahlmeier

    (University of Zurich)

  • Jean-Michel Oppert

    (University Pierre et Marie Curie – Paris 6, Pitie-Salpetriere hospital (AP-HP), Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition (ICAN))

  • Hidde Ploeg

    (VU University Medical Center)

  • Willem Mechelen

    (VU University Medical Center)

Abstract

Objectives This paper presents a typology of available evidence to inform physical activity policy. It aims to refine the distinction between three types of evidence relating to physical activity and to compare these types for the purpose of clarifying potential research gaps. Methods A scoping review explored the extent, range and nature of three types of physical activity-related evidence available in reviews: (I) health outcomes/risk factors, (II) interventions and (III) policy-making. A six-step qualitative, iterative process with expert consultation guided data coding and analysis in EPPI Reviewer 4. Results 856 Type I reviews, 350 Type II reviews and 40 Type III reviews were identified. Type I reviews heavily focused on obesity issues (18 %). Reviews of a systematic nature were more prominent in the Type II (>50 %). Type III reviews tended to conflate research about policy intervention effectiveness and research about policymaking processes. The majority of reviews came from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Conclusions Although evidence gaps exist regarding evidence Types I and II, the most prominent gap regards Type III, i.e. research pertaining to physical activity policymaking. The findings presented herein will be used to inform physical activity policy development and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfred Rütten & Diana Schow & João Breda & Gauden Galea & Sonja Kahlmeier & Jean-Michel Oppert & Hidde Ploeg & Willem Mechelen, 2016. "Three types of scientific evidence to inform physical activity policy: results from a comparative scoping review," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(5), pages 553-563, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijphth:v:61:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s00038-016-0807-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ketan Shankardass & Orielle Solar & Kelly Murphy & Lorraine Greaves & Patricia O’Campo, 2012. "A scoping review of intersectoral action for health equity involving governments," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(1), pages 25-33, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antoine Noël Racine & Jean-Marie Garbarino & Bernard Massiera & Anne Vuillemin, 2022. "Modeling the Development of Local Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policies from Empirical Data and Policy Science Theories," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yannai Kranzler & Yael Parag & Nadav Davidovitch, 2019. "Public Health from the Middle-Out: A New Analytical Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Harris, Patrick & Kent, Jennifer & Sainsbury, Peter & Thow, Anne Marie, 2016. "Framing health for land-use planning legislation: A qualitative descriptive content analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 42-51.
    3. Linda Irvine Fitzpatrick & Donald Maciver & Kirsty Forsyth, 2021. "Incite to Practice: Development of a Realist-Informed Program Theory to Support Implementation of Intersectoral Partnerships," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.
    4. Li, Daitian & Malerba, Franco, 2024. "Technological change and the evolution of the links across sectoral systems: The case of mobile communications," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Ebenezer Owusu‐Addo & Andre M. N. Renzaho & Paul Sarfo‐Mensah & Yaw A. Sarpong & William Niyuni & Ben J. Smith, 2023. "Sustainability of cash transfer programs: A realist case study," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 173-198, June.
    6. Friel, Sharon & Townsend, Belinda & Fisher, Matthew & Harris, Patrick & Freeman, Toby & Baum, Fran, 2021. "Power and the people's health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    7. Daniel Weiss & Håvard T Rydland & Emil Øversveen & Magnus Rom Jensen & Solvor Solhaug & Steinar Krokstad, 2018. "Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: A scoping review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Marjolijn Vos & Maria Romeo-Velilla & Ingrid Stegeman & Ruth Bell & Nina van der Vliet & Wendy Van Lippevelde, 2020. "Qualitative Evaluation of the STOEMP Network in Ghent: An Intersectoral Approach to Make Healthy and Sustainable Food Available to All," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Owusu-Addo, Ebenezer & Renzaho, Andre M.N. & Smith, Ben J., 2020. "Developing a middle-range theory to explain how cash transfers work to tackle the social determinants of health: A realist case study," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. Agnes Molnar & Emilie Renahy & Patricia O’Campo & Carles Muntaner & Alix Freiler & Ketan Shankardass, 2016. "Using Win-Win Strategies to Implement Health in All Policies: A Cross-Case Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Ellen Strøm Synnevåg, 2022. "Evaluating ‘Health in All Policies’ in Norwegian Municipalities," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-8, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ijphth:v:61:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s00038-016-0807-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.