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

Abstract

ObjectivesThis 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.MethodsA 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.Results856 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions: A systematic review of reviews

“…In order to make informed public health decisions on how to promote physical activity, information on the overall effectiveness of different intervention types to increase physical activity, and considerations of cost-effectiveness of different interventions types are highly relevant. While an impressive number of reviews have been conducted on the topic of effectiveness of physical activity promotion (a recent scoping review yielded more than 350 reviews; Rütten et al, 2016 ), the interest in assessing the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions appears to have grown only recently, as evidenced by a series of relevant systematic reviews that have been published in the last 5 years ( Campbell et al, 2015 , GC et al, 2015 , Laine et al, 2014 , Foster et al, 2013 , Balzer et al, 2012 , Lehnert et al, 2012 ). Mainly, existing reviews on the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions have focused on particular target groups (e.g.…”

Population levels of, and inequalities in, active travel: A national, cross-sectional study of adults in Scotland

“…Furthermore, those who are phsycially active are at lower risk of cardiovascular disease, then those who aren't ( Celis-Morales et al, 2017 ). The World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently implementing the first European strategy on physical activity ( Rütten et al, 2016 ), which aims to promote physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviours, remove environmental barriers to activity and provide equal opportunities to be active ( World Health Organisation, 2015 ).…”

Classifying the types of evidence produced on the Academia da Cidade Program: a scoping review

“…On a mapping review about physical activity public policy using the type of evidence available (Type I, II or III), Rutten et al 21 identified that studies focused on type III-those analyzing the formulation, implementation and agenda concerning public policy-were less likely to be found when compared to types I and II.…”

“…Though PA is recognized as an important theme in public health 18 and it is a public policy matter 19 , investigations on public health have not presented alignment with policy science theories 20 and, therefore, do not support evidence connected to the development process of a policy 21 . There are three types of classifications for evidence connecting public policy to PA: Type Ievidence linking physical activity and health outcomes (example: diabetes, hypertension); Type II -evidence linking interventions to behaviors related to physical activity (example: environments that influence physical activity); and Type III -evidence linking public policy to physical activity interventions, for example: political agendas, funding, implementation, among others 21 .…”

“…Therefore, this research focused on classifying the scientific literature related to ACP-Recife into three categories of evidence used to develop policies for physical activity as proposed by Rutten et al 21 .…”