Many Papers but Limited Policy Impact? A Bibliometric Review of Physical Activity Research

Abstract

Scientific publications on physical activity (PA) have proliferated in recent years. Previous work has shown that descriptive studies dominate the literature with disappointingly fewer studies reporting on interventions or dissemination. This study updates trends in PA research to determine changes, if any, in publications that are more likely to contribute to facilitating research translation to scale-up interventions that might influence population levels of PA. A bibliometric review of a random sample of published PA studies (n = 4069) across three periods (2008-2009, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018) was conducted using the SCOPUS database. A four-stage coding strategy was used, including 1) identifying PA as exposure or primary outcome, 2) classifying PA studies into data-based and non-data-based studies, 3) classifying data-based PA studies into intervention and nonintervention studies, and 4) classifying intervention studies into six research translation categories. Descriptive PA studies dominated in all three time periods (52.1%-61.9%). Intervention studies increased only slightly from 14.8% to 19.2%. Within intervention studies, most focused on testing efficacy or effectiveness, and these increased over time across the time periods from 38% to 50.5%. Research relevant for scale-up such as replication and dissemination studies declined from the first to the most recent period (28.1% to 16.7%). The prevailing trend of descriptive studies and efficacy and/or effectiveness studies on a small scale continues in published PA literature, contrary to the increasing recognition of the need for scale-up and dissemination research. More dissemination research is required to translate known efficacious interventions to population-level implementation. There is a need for cultural shifts in research where real-world impact on population health should be valued more than the volume of publications.

Brief physical activity counselling by physiotherapists (BEHAVIOUR): protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomised controlled trial

“…The benefits of physical activity have been well established for many years, yet the predominant research studies published are still observational studies with only 16.7% categorised as implementation and scale-up studies [ 62 ]. By using the hybrid type II design, our study will provide essential information about how this intervention can be adopted and delivered in a real-world setting while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention in these real-world conditions.…”

“…By using the hybrid type II design, our study will provide essential information about how this intervention can be adopted and delivered in a real-world setting while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention in these real-world conditions. This will provide direct evidence to policy makers as to if and how the intervention can be implemented and scaled up at a systems level to meet population health goals [ 62 ].…”

Modeling the Development of Local Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policies from Empirical Data and Policy Science Theories

“…Table 1 presents the main characteristics of these municipalities. The assessment of the development level of HEPA policies of these municipalities was achieved using CAPLA-Santé [19][20][21][22][23][24], a local HEPA policy analysis tool based on the national HEPA Policy Audit Tool version 2 of the World Health Organization [25,26]. CAPLA-Santé contains 21 items divided into six major sections: overview of HEPA stakeholders in the local government area, policy documents, policy contents, funding and political engagement, studies and measures relating to physical activity in the local government area, and progress achieved and future challenges.…”

“…To translate research into efficient policy and practice, studies should move from the 'what' to the 'how' [20]. Most of the policy research on physical activity is focused on descriptive studies [21]. For that, theories from political science could enhance the understanding of 'how' and 'why' health policy are structured and implemented [22,23].…”

Changes in Australian community perceptions of non-communicable disease prevention: a greater role for government?

“…However, calls to make these upstream changes through regulation and structural change can be met with community suspicion about the effectiveness and true purpose of such interventions [ 9 , 10 ] and reluctance on the part of policymakers due to concerns of public acceptability, amongst other considerations [ 11 , 12 ]. Yet the evidence base in public health strongly favors descriptive correlational studies, rather than studies examining intervention effectiveness, sustainability and public support – evidence which could assist policymakers to build a case for population-level interventions [ 13 ].…”