Research- vs. government-driven physical activity policy monitoring: a systematic review across different levels of government

Abstract

Background: Even though the importance of physical activity policy monitoring has increased in the last decade, there is a lack of understanding what different approaches exist and which methodology they employ. In order to address this research gap, this review attempts to map existing approaches of physical activity policy monitoring and to analyse methodological aspects, especially with regards to the roles of governments and researchers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in five scientific databases, using the terms “physical activity”, “policy” and “monitoring” and their variations. In total, 12.963 studies were identified and, after the elimination of duplicates, screened independently by two reviewers. During full text analysis, information on methodological aspects was extracted and studies were categorized based on the level of government involvement. Results: The search yielded in a total of 112 studies. More than three quarters of these studies followed a research-driven approach (little or no government involvement) while only two studies were based on a government-driven approach (led by governments). The remaining studies were based on a co-production approach (strong collaboration between researchers and governments). All in all, 18 different tools for physical activity policy monitoring were identified; key examples are the Report Cards on Physical Activity for Children and Youth (research-driven approach), the HEPA Monitoring Framework (government-driven approach) and the HEPA Policy Audit Tool (co-production approach). Conclusions: The level of government involvement in policy monitoring differs significantly, and research-driven, government-driven and co-production approaches can be distinguished. These approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, and can be linked to distinct theories of change and models on research-policy relations. Increasing awareness on the implications of these approaches is key to improve the understanding and further development of physical activity policy monitoring.